1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

I declare thee man and cow

Discussion in 'Other Policies' started by dong, Sep 23, 2006.

  1. palefrost

    palefrost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    2
    I see you haven't even covered the side effects of these homosexual bestiality relationships. Have you considered the impact it could have on angering the PETA groups and the religious sects which honestly already has shown no sense of humor IMO. Its a whole can of worms! :nono:

    On a big business perspective though, think of the options to make money off such couples. :evilsmile: Special beds would need to be made, A new design in houses with special animal doors. Think of the business adam and eve could make on the hawt body oils and lubes!!! Its a cash cow for sure. No pun intented.....
     
  2. dong

    dong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's because we considered them as they are- side effects...apart from the dying from internal trauma one, that's one hell of a side effect. This is to say I claimed they are not pertinent to the issue of moral judgment of the deed in and of itself.

    But of course it is a can of worms. I do know for a fact that a common position of an animal-rights activist would be to say engaging in any kind of sexual act with an animal would be tantamount to abuse ("they're like children: they don't know any better"). First this is an over-generalisation; were this to be the position, I can easily provide any number of counterexamples. Otherwise it's back to those original posts in this thread (refer to first principles), and unless you attack those, I believe I have it covered :D

    That said, South Park's Vote or Die episode had a pretty good parody of PETA activists. Still not quite as good as the P.Diddy "Vote or die muthaf**ka" song.

    NB: I also see you've used the term bestiality, whereas I've referred specifically to zoophilia. There is a significant difference in the definitioins and connotations of those terms, so care must be taken to ensure proper usage. If I have to, I'll post the definitions, but I'm feeling lazy now.

    And my dear lady, I believe certain parts of Europe are waaaaayyyyy ahead of you ;)

    http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1458080.ece

    As the article does state, there are concerns regarding animal abuse, cruelty and accidental injury, which are a major factor in reviewing legislation allowing/regulating such practice. It's a sad reality and personally I don't think the idea of 'animal bordellos' is a particularly good one. But I do think that the current laws that prohibit 'bestiality' (the legal term) in most countries is a vestige that needs reviewing too.
     
  3. l99999us

    l99999us Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know....

    I guess I am still not convinced that the laws necessarilly need reviewing. i do think that they do serve a purpose in that more abuse would probably happen without them.

    As for PETA while i do think some of their publicity stunts are questionable i do think they do take good positions and do a lot of good work as well. They are right to question the idea that animals are ours to use.

    In any case i am wondering if the sexual aspect of this discussion will ever be dropped. I would think that purely emotional relationships should be discussed as well.
     
  4. dong

    dong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    This would be a suitable rationale, IMO. However, unlike what the law purports, I cannot be sure that such laws were written with proper consideration to the moral philosophy and as new revelations and views come to the fore, this, like anything else that is faced with controversial or altered implications, should be ratified or amended in accordance.

    Of course. I'm only following where the discussion takes me, really.

    Although that said, one reason we drifted to the sexual aspect would be because in more 'standard' relationship contexts this aspect is often considered merely an extension of intimate contact.
     
  5. palefrost

    palefrost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    2
    Its a question of semantics. Your still screwing an ANIMAL!! ;) That's bestiality to me and a sexual fetish. To claim some sort of relationship to cover up a perversion is typical denial with hopes of fooling people into excepting deviant behavior. One can then assume, using the same mentality, that a child of eight also has a right and feelings for Chester the molester, maybe we should let them shack up and marry?

    We cant. Our society and our culture has produced a set moral codes. We would need to explore how moral is agreed on and created to get any answers on why we are not bumping uglies with Bambi.

    To me it would be way more fascinating to ask why people feel the urge (the fetish) to touch mary's sheep. What sexual history they have or how it got warped into sexuality. I personally think its the taboo factor. If you made it legal the dirty, naughty, shocking, unmentioned, need the person had is lost. I feel they would choose a new perversion. So its not necessarily that nice tight ass on little boo peeps sheep.
     
  6. sarah

    sarah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    371
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you on this one. There is no need for such a thing to be considered a logical option, and as much as you would like to debate it there is one natural reason for sex... to reproduce. And this is bestiality as far as I am concerned.
    People who enjoy sex with children are considered wrong… well, animals are in damn near the same position, and they do not have the ability to articulate their lack of interest or enjoyment. Bestiality should be treated, not condoned.
     
  7. dong

    dong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tsk tsk people, I believe you've almost offended me. Allow me to explain.

    Essentially, you are trying to rationally justify irrationalism. This is precisely the brand of "hypocrisy" that I was ranting about a while ago in the "gay marriage" thread. We were previously discussing how gay people should be considered the same as hetero people, and this necessarily entails a discussion of normative standards, as I'm sure you remember a time (pre-1971) when homosexuality was considered a medical condition that "should not be condoned, but treated." Thus your failure to apply the same consideration here can only be an inconsistency (unless you wish to directly engage with me on the broad moral principles I already laid out on the first page).

    Palefrost, I see you'd (edited) rather not use the proper definitions, but this, in fact, would be quite detrimental to this conversation. You are free to use your own definitions but in doing so, you will be forced to acknowledge a loss of accuracy and thus analytical power, and in doing that, you'll have made yourself irrelevant to any meaningful dialogue. Which I presumed was the aim of this forum. This is why it is important to be aware of definitions and principles to some degree of rigor, and this applies to all conversation.

    Now if you don't mind me, I will first paste the proper definitions (which I've gacked from a conversation I was having in Livejournal in far more hostile conditions):

    Technically speaking, bestiality is a legal term simply meaning engaging in sexual conduct with an animal (i.e. not human). That apparently means anything from raping a chicken while chopping its head off to letting your dog hump your leg (or whatever) to its satisfaction. It automatically holds negative connotations because of its use to designate such as illegal. Zoophilia refers to attraction to animals that does not preclude intimacy of any sort (for want of a better expression).

    However, the way that it is discussed in places such as this thread (or rather, in layman's terms), well, the sole primary focus of the term bestiality is on the sexual aspect (as in the pornographic sense). Zoophilia again is a bit broader, and more commonly, focuses on the attraction to animals as a whole. This of course may manifest as a sexual attraction, and it seems that it does so often enough for people to make a generalisation of it. Since you (i.e. the guy who asked me to provide definitions) already implicitly agree with me that there is a distinction to be made in terms of what you call "bestiality" insofar, as some circumstances involve rape and some do not, I only need say that what I call "zoophilia", by definition, never involves an act of rape, for it would be equally absurd to claim that raping a human woman was an "act of love".

    Much of the contention in these areas lie not only in the underlying premises, but also in the semantics, and misapprehensions about which terms refer to what and in the context of which part of what conceptual framework.

    And now I will address your reply piece-by-piece:

    To claim some sort of relationship to cover up a perversion is typical denial with hopes of fooling people into excepting deviant behavior. One can then assume, using the same mentality, that a child of eight also has a right and feelings for Chester the molester, maybe we should let them shack up and marry?

    Quick reply: you're committing strawman fallacy. I've already explained that it is reasonable to assume (and Todd agrees with me here regardless of the discussion of sexual elements here) that it is possible to think of particular interactions between humans and other animals as a 'relationship' of some sort, and I even went into the effort of explaining specifically where this might constitute a delusion. I do hope you take the effort of rereading that part as it appears this has been ignored. Also, I claim that you wouldn't find yourself saying these things if we weren't talking about the "bumping uglies" bit.

    We would need to explore how moral is agreed on and created to get any answers on why we are not bumping uglies with Bambi.

    Of course. That is what we're doing here. However, let's change that statement to demonstrate the nature of exploration and practice of normative standards in cultural codes: "...and created to get any answers on why we are not bumping uglies with members of the same sex." I would like you to reflect on what part of you is being closed-minded, and in what way. I do not mean that one should be open-minded to the extent that they say "everything is OK" but rather that one should give proper consideration...for when this is truly done with proper regard to principles of reason, respect and tolerance, it no longer becomes necessary to say "this is OK" or not...and want to talk of that as a general prescriptive rule.

    To me it would be way more fascinating to ask why people feel the urge (the fetish) to touch mary's sheep. What sexual history they have or how it got warped into sexuality.

    As somebody who is personally and academically familiar with abnormal psychology and psychiatry, I can tell you that the presentation, as with everything else, can be quite varied. I can also tell you that in some cases this is arguably moreso the product of a predisposed orientation as opposed to a cultural motivation (again parallels can be drawn specifically to recent discussions regarding gender orientation). Therefore:

    If you made it legal the dirty, naughty, shocking, unmentioned, need the person had is lost. I feel they would choose a new perversion.

    Is most certainly possible...for some but not all people. Actually, it would be apt here to say that such are most likely to fall under the 'bestiality' umbrella, but not the 'zoophile' one as most typically, their specifically sexual interest would have been a result of the vicious cycle of what I refer to as "the pornography syndrome". As in when "normal" things no longer excite you, you need more, and more and it gets "ridiculous". In this case it's a search for "deviance" mediated through the sexual market, which in itself has implications for our practice of adherence to normative standards. And you're right. Apparently alot of deviant pornography is specifically marketed as being precisely that, and it really is quite exploitative.

    However, I will remind you most importantly that we are specifically talking about relationships, not merely (and not necessarily) sex with animals and the reason I insisted on using the definitions was because I feel it important that there be a distinction observed.

    Now moving along to Sarah's affirmation:

    There is no need for such a thing to be considered a logical option

    By now you will realise that I've ranted on at some length about why this is unacceptable. Furthermore, your justification for this is:

    1. An appeal to naturalism, which is a fallacy (this comment is ridiculously long so I shall not provide an explanation unless required to).
    2. Simply wrong, as evidence clearly indicates.

    People using biological imperative as a motive for sex is a very very common device, but it's also an extremely obvious mistake...do I need to go into this further? If so, I will create a new thread.

    People who enjoy sex with children are considered wrong… well, animals are in damn near the same position

    This is a perfect example of exactly what I was cautioning against when discussing Todd's comparison of children and animals. Again it's also wrong (sigh, I could go on and on about this if you so wish but by this time, I'll have written a complete honors thesis)...anyway, Sarah, please read the first page again too.

    And therefore, ladies and gentlemen:

    Bestiality should be treated, not condoned.

    Is false. This is also not medical practice.

    On a slightly less tedious note, I see the parallels could lead to a very interesting discussion on pedophilia, as I also hold a significantly unorthodox position not dissimilar to the one I've demonstrated here and would particularly enjoy turning the heat up a little.

    Will throw out bait soon.
     
  8. palefrost

    palefrost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    2
    right, wrong..thinking makes it so.... Those are my views. Im not going to entertain you anymore.
     
  9. dong

    dong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Awwww I don't mean to be that harsh. You should know that I'm not an objectivist by now...okay let me rephrase that...no in fact scratch that. Actually just read what I said after that, methinks that was probably more appropriate.

    For the record: From my personal usage, the only time I should be saying that something is 'wrong' is if either they are contradicting themselves, commiting a fallacy or else misquoting or mistating facts. If you think I'm using the word in any other way (such as that example there) then please slap me on the wrist.
     
  10. l99999us

    l99999us Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to clarify when i mentioned the word relationship I was using it in a very general sense. it is a term a lot broader then a sexual relationship. For example a parent would have a relationship with a child and i have a relationship with my friends and co-workers. The term does not necesarilly indicate it is sexual as it is not with the above ones with people i mentioned.
    I do have a rabbit companion and while i would say it is an emotional relationship (I love him and he can spend a long time licking me) their is no sexual attraction or element of it.

    As for sex I do think we do have to consider ethics of the situation. I think it comes back to the issue of concent and is the animal truely a knowingly concenting partner in this in a way that they can make a choice. I don't beleive so and this is where the comparison with pedophilia is coming from. Their are certainly differences here both physically and emotionally but i don't think it is much different in this respect. It is a compeltly different situation from a adult sexual relationship (a hetrosexual or homosexual one) where both partners are concenting.

    And i do think ethics has to be the guiding principal here. Not what someone wishes to do (or feels the urge to do).
     
  11. dong

    dong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    That post pretty much clears up and sums up the position and the current area of controversy in this topic, as well as restates some opinions. There are certainly areas of disagreement but as far as I can ascertain this cannot be properly explored as of the time being, and so opinions will have to remain such for now. Unless anybody else has something...new to say, (or maybe offer some clarification...whatever) then I get the feeling we're gonna start going around in circles.
     
  12. palefrost

    palefrost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    2
    Totally agree Dong, i think we have reached full circle with the final conclusion being that you want to sleep with animals. Which does explain your avatar....:evilsmile:


    [​IMG]
     
  13. dong

    dong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    I swear! I can take a joke!

    *chokes on his pie then laughs* Me? Want to sleep with animals? This is about the time I start asking you about your drinking habits, missus :evilsmile: Please note that I come from Australia, not New Zealand* :p

    On some more serious notes, my apologies for not leaving the humor as it is, but suggestions that I am a zoophile (in a sense inclusive of sexual relations) are so not explained by my avatar! I would like to point you to the discussion in the thread on "teh furry" (in the society forum) because it is often an assumption that if one goes around identifying as a 'furry' (i.e. as indicated by my avatar) then one likes to have sex with animals...which many said furries would strongly deny (and then go on to distance themselves from the notion by being vehemently...uhm...zoophobic...not unlike homophobia). I know there seems to be this link and I wouldn't deny there to be a certain association (so you wouldn't be incorrect in saying what you did) but I would contend that this can only be properly regarded on an individual case-by-case basis.

    Also it occured to me that the summing up wasn't quite done right, coz it wasn't comprehensive enough. So as a quick list, let's see if I can think of the salient points off the top of my head:
    1. We were originally talking about the status of relationships between people and other animals in a general sense.
    2. We agree to varying degrees that animals should be regarded as moral agents.
    3. The issue of consent and the ability to discern consent is central due to the presumably reciprocal nature of a relationship.
    4. We also agree that to treat a human-animal relationship exactly the same as a human-human relationship is generally delusional in that animals have obvious differences between them. But also in terms of being aware of how one treats this topic on a conceptual basis.
    5. Care must be taken to maintain consistency in reasoning when discussing how one should/can treat animals.
    6. Since issues of sexual behavior inevitably come into play, it were best to observe the differences in the relevant terms. Bestiality would refer to the emphasis on sexual contact (i.e. 'the sexual fetish' if you must), whilse zoophilia- to reiterate: "Zoophilia refers to attraction to animals that does not preclude intimacy of any sort (for want of a better expression)...Zoophilia...more commonly, focuses on the attraction to animals as a whole."
    7. Importantly, and I don't think we've mentioned this at all yet, judgements on behavior seem generally tied to the notion of initiative. What I mean by this is that it we presume that humans hold the initiative and therefore are primarily accountable. It seems the first image that one thinks of were one to think 'bestiality' is a man using his pet dog or some probably unwilling partner. The implications and associations are that of the man being the initiator/agressor (not unrelated to male/female sexual perceptions) which can be misleading. Related to a broader issue so I think I'll raise another thread on gender politics.
    8. This has important ramifications on discussions regarding moral aspects of conduct with animals, both sexual and non-sexual.
    9. Regardless, in a psychiatric setting, presuming the reality of predispositions, a sexual fetish (or any psychiatric 'condition') is not a pathology unless it causes maladaptive behaviors that cause a deterioration in mental/physical integrity. Actually, this is relevant to Hussar's thread regarding the pro-life doctor that refused to give generally over-the-counter contraceptives, so I'll write it up in a separate thread. Again, as Todd is anxious to emphasise, this is only relevant to part of the discussion.
    So really, it's not quite a full circle. Maybe a big gaping wide open loop. But if we were to start going around in circles it'd go something like "you want to screw animals? Ewww that's so wrong" "No it isn't." "Yes it is." "No it isn't." and like all other great controversies will trundle forth ad nauseum until the world disappears up a small orifice.

    *PS I apologise profusely if I offend anybody in dropping the standard sheep-shagger joke!
     
  14. Hussar

    Hussar Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this right there is where the break comes. Animals in no way can be regarded as moral agents. Animals have no concept of right or wrong other than what we as an owner may give them. An attack dog that kills a child is no more guilty of murder than a car is. Animals as pets are property with no more or less standing in law than that.

    [/quote]
    1. The issue of consent and the ability to discern consent is central due to the presumably reciprocal nature of a relationship.
    2. We also agree that to treat a human-animal relationship exactly the same as a human-human relationship is generally delusional in that animals have obvious differences between them. But also in terms of being aware of how one treats this topic on a conceptual basis.
    3. Care must be taken to maintain consistency in reasoning when discussing how one should/can treat animals.[/quote]
    Actually, no care must be taken to maintain consistency. Animals are property, and, as such, have no rights. We protect animals from cruelty, not because it hurts the animal, but because it makes us feel bad when someone beats a dog to death. Note that there are no such public outcry when one animal kills and eats another. As a society, we couldn't care less about that rabbit that just became a snack for that fox. There are no great rallying cries when a hamster eats its young. Nor, is there any particular outcry when someone hits a dog with his car. The car owner may have to pay restitution to the dog owner, but, there is no criminal act.

    Again, since animals have no status in law, they cannot be considered rational actors any more than a door or a tree.


    I truly think the major problem with this line of thought is the fact that both children and animals have somewhat similar standings in law. Neither are considered rational actors and thus have either no rights (animals) or severely curtailed rights (children). However, the similarity is really superficial.

    While they do have less rights than a full adult, children are not considered property under law. I cannot sell my child, nor can I kill her with impunity. I can do both with my dog.

    Since animals are property, at best, the laws protecting them are property laws. We criminalize beastiality because it is a violation of property. In the same way that there are laws preventing you from removing the muffler from your car (illegal noise violations and pollution violations), we proscribe beastiality acts.

    There really are no similarities between pedophilia and beastiality (I exclude zoophilia since it is not illegal) other than they are both criminal acts. You cannot marry an animal since an animal is incapable of entering into a legally binding contract in exactly the same way you cannot enter into a legally binding contract with a stapler.

    Marriage is, and likely will remain so for the foreseeable future, a contract. Without the ability to sign, you cannot marry anyone or anything.
     
  15. l99999us

    l99999us Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    0
    I could make the case that children and some who are mentally retarded have no concept of morality. Does this make it right to abuse those people? The fact is that they do have emotions and are capable of feeling pain and that in itself makes it necessary to consider them moral agents. The fact that we may treat them as property does not make it right. Now i am not saying that they have to be given things like the right to vote (which they couldn't understand) but it doesn't give us the right to treat them as we wish with no regard for their interests.

     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice