Beastiality brothels in Germany

20:56 February 3, 2012 by achernar

I think it's hypocritical for somebody who KILLS animals (by eating meat) to condemn somebody sexually assaulting them. Murder is worse than rape, plain and simple. (What you find disgusting or not is irrelevant, just as people who find gay sex disgusting cannot prevent gay people from having sex.)

22:27 February 4, 2012 by dantanner

Why is this different from "gay rights"? It had to happen. Want to marry your schnauzer?

This depends on drawing an equivalence between human and non-human life. But most people pretty readily concede you can't (and shouldn't) do that in any workable sense. You cannot "murder" a non-sentient being. You can, however, cause pain or distress to one that has a nervous system. Since sexual intercourse would do the latter, while there are plenty of humane ways to kill, the two acts aren't really comparable.

Because human beings are sentient and can therefore give consent.

50/50 chance they're trolls and not being sincere. Idiots either way, I guess.

Unless you are the final authority on the meanings of words, I don't think you can dismiss the comparison on the grounds you presented.

I could say with reason that animals are sentient, that you can murder them, and that humans having sexual intercourse with them does not necessarily cause them pain or distress.

Animals can give consent. Maybe not verbally, but not all communication need be verbal.

1) If you're actually suggesting that the definitions of words can be flexible enough just to promote a certain point, then there is no need for discussing anything. Because up is down and red is green.
2) Consent is a legal concept. Animals can not give consent, because that's what the law states. Also, there is no evidence that animals could give agreement to having sex with a human, so that's out the window too.

Try again, you're slipping.

No, but given that the purpose of language is to communicate thoughts between beings that don't have access to one another's thoughts, it at some level exists by consensus. Therefore, while you can certainly employ idiosyncratic meanings for certain words, you can't really expect others to agree with them. I can make my case using pretty widely accepted parameters for defining "sentience." What definition would you put forward that most people would agree to?

We are, again, using different operative meanings. I refer to the broader, legal meaning of consent, as in [informed] consent. While I'd agree many species are certainly capable of communicating, there's pretty much none that has demonstrated the mental capacity to do what I'm asking. Especially since, you know, not even young human teenagers are recognized as having enough mental competence to do so on a routine basis.

I just wanted to tell you that the picture you included made me laugh.

Evil.

1) I'm suggesting that an animal can have "sentience" and that they can be "murdered".

2) Consent is not strictly a legal concept. If there were no laws, one could still give consent.

That's not relevant to the topic. The legal consent is what matters.

For some reason, I'm reminded of "Ristrathra", an old sci-fi concept for inter-species mating. Don't remember which series of books.

Was also famous in "Man of Steel/Woman of Kleenex--a treatise on why Clark Kent and Lois Lane can't have children".

Take all this energy and fuss you're building up, and redirect it toward/into your own sex life. You'll be much happier, and the world will be a lot better place.

What was at issue was whether meat-eaters (animal-murderers) had the moral high-ground when it comes to condemning people who practice bestiality. Another issue that came up was whether there was any comparison between gays (who have sexual practices that are offensive to some) and bestiality practitioners (who have sexual practices that are offensive to most).

I think we all already knew that animals cannot give legal consent.

Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive things, according oxforddictionaries.com.

What's your definition? Honestly, I've never heard anyone argue that a dog wasn't sentient.

Just to repeat, we all know that animals cannot give consent under the law. I was talking about volitional consent, if there is a such a term. You know what I mean.

I suppose being raped is a bit less awful than being tortured and torn apart in a slaughter house???????

I really got nothin'.

Did mom ever teach you not to play with your food? People nowadays have no table manners.

Jeez.

Edit: that was directed at no one in particular, btw

Perhaps I ought to refine my terminology. As should be evident form the broader segment of my original post, I am trying to get at the idea of self-awareness. The unique aspect of intelligence that is possessed by no creatures outside the great apes, and only controversially asserted as applicable to anything outside of humanity at all. The basic idea is that it makes sense to treat Homo sapiens as unique because scientifically, they are.

I don't see what your point is. Why is it sensible to use legal definitions of other acts ("rape" and "murder") but somehow not appropriate to use legal definitions in evaluation of said legal terms? Wouldn't that be the preferred context? Further, the legal definition of consent evolved to address concerns about eliminating non-meaningful assent. Even before there was a formal legal framework, people understood intuitively (as they still do) that it is possible, and in fact quite easy to "take advantage" of the mentally retarded/developmentally delayed, minors, and the demented to get them to agree to things that they probably wouldn't if they understood what was happening better. If you agree that all these things are possible, and protections are therefore appropriate, how can you simultaneously argue that animals (all of whom are less mentally capable than any of these groups, usually by several orders of magnitude) can somehow do what they cannot?

are you saying that it's better to kill a mentally retarded person than it is to have sex with them?

No, I'm saying even retarded people can think in ways that no wolf ever could. Which is what makes killing the one murder, and the other a stupid, violent hobby of Sarah Palin.

Isn't it funny how statements that begin with those three words tend to be ones that either put words in others' mouths or attempt to misconstrue the points others make?

If anything, bringing up that most people who condemn bestiality accept meat-eating is an argument against meat-eating rather than for bestiality. I think it's debatable if the two are at all equivalent-- though I don't think I agree with most of Jabba-wocky's anthropocentric arguments-- and it's stupid to bring up the comparison in the first place because it just makes the person look like he wants to **** a horse or something.

YOU'RE HYPOCRITES SO LEAVE ME AND BESSIE IN PEACE

i'm suprised no one has brought this up. depends on if it's animal's that we eat like cows or animals that we keep as pets like dogs or cats. we don't kill dogs or cats, but we do kill cows and pigs. so if somone is saying because you eat cows you should be okay if somone rapes a dog or cat, that would make no sense.

fwiw, it is best to have sex with a dead mentally retarded person. a dead any kind of person, in fact.

Without defining "self-awareness" more precisely, that argument isn't very persuasive. It doesn't offer any objective reasoning.

Also, a similar rationale was used to justify the enslavement of blacks...

In answer to the question "why is this different from gay rights?" you replied "Because human beings are sentient and can therefore give consent."

Since the ability to give consent was predicated on sentience, it was fair (nay, it was correct) for me to assume that you weren't talking about legal definitions.

Marriage is a legal contract. Discussions of gay rights generally center around the (archaic lack of) right of same-sex couples to marry. Therefore, bestiality comparisons are not only idiotic, but moot regarding the discussion--unless anyone cares to demonstrate a situation in which an animal has been able to sign a legal contract.

In the United States and I am assuming in the other countries represented on these boards, only human adults can sign legal contracts.

Obviously bestiality practitioners are at a different point in their struggle for civil rights than gays are.*

Logically, petitions for marriage rights would come only after decriminalization.

The comparison would be to gays wanting sodomy laws taken off the books.

*They aren't actually struggling.

How so? Do you hold that there is no intelligence gap between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom (for simplicity's sake, again, let's exclude the other great apes)? Is it your position that the two are of equal mental capacity? That shrimp have the same subjective experience of consciousness that we do?

The rationale used to justify that enslavement of blacks was that they were not fully human. So, again, I must ask you, are you staking your argument in this thread on the position that all animals are fully equivalent to human beings?

One can acknowledge that things are in some ways analogous without conceding they are in every point identical. For instance, even though it is sensible in some ways to treat corporations like people (pay taxes) it does not therefore follow that they deserve all the rights to which a person is entitled (marriage, free speech, etc). In the same way, animals are in some fashion like humans. But you are making arguments as if they are human, which they pretty clearly are not.

No one would fault you for not having taken that impression the first time. But now that you grasp the operative definition, what answer do you have?