Shug on 16/1/2008 at 23:41
Er, did you just quote a post made 2 years before you joined these boards? I mean, seriously. If anything, that post is shining proof of how rational people will adjust their views over a period of time independently of upbringing - as opposed to being "that guy" in 90% of debates they've entered in the last 18 months as a supposedly fully developed adult.
And in terms of beastiality, taking the line that "as long as we're killing animals, we may as well be able to rape them!" is, if you'll excuse the pun, pretty fucking stupid. I'm going to assume that it's just a subtle way to mention your hatred of animal treatment in abattoirs/batteries rather than a genuine belief that raping animals isn't somehow an additional cruelty in and of itself. And that's the only term you could realistically use - it is, and would be, rape.
Not to mention the legality of raping animals would obviously extend past livestock to stray cats / the family dog / uncle bill's prize goldfish, and that is just beyond bizarre that you could entertain the idea as some kind of taboo-shattering achievement and a step forward in liberal thinking.
Somewhat oddly, my views on incest arent as strong; but the concern would more be those mid to late teen years where different countries have different ages of consent and the issue would become murky indeed, and possibly scarring in later years to siblings that became sexually involved with each other. Who cares about Joey Bob and his sister when they're getting it on as 40 year olds, other than the inevitable sense of distaste.
editttt
Quote Posted by DinkyDogg
As to bestiality constituting animal cruelty, my problem with this is the double standard, which I've explained before. If the meat or egg industry abuses hundreds of thousands (or millions? tens of millions?) of animals, it's legal, but if a man or woman decides to get it on with his or her sheep, suddenly everyone is all over it. Because the issue here is not the animal abuse, it's the taboo against sexual deviance.
Your problem shouldn't be the 'double standard' - and "the" problem isn't the taboo against sexual deviance - the issue should be stopping widescale animal abuse rather than accepting further animal abuse in the form of raping animals. Otherwise it's just a case of justifying one wrong with another.
You seem to be under this odd misconception that a man and his sheep are having a bit of innocent fun when BANG the public start spoiling their romantic interlude. The issue is far more cut and dried compared to incest.
Morte on 17/1/2008 at 00:04
Quote Posted by DinkyDogg
As to bestiality constituting animal cruelty, my problem with this is the double standard, which I've explained before. If the meat or egg industry abuses hundreds of thousands (or millions? tens of millions?) of animals, it's legal, but if a man or woman decides to get it on with his or her sheep, suddenly everyone is all over it. Because the issue here is not the animal abuse, it's the taboo against sexual deviance. And it's not the government's business to legislate something out of existence simply because the thought of it makes them uncomfortable.
You're aware that two wrongs don't make a right, yes? If you think that bestiality entails animal abuse, and that animal abuse is wrong*, then the fact that the meat industry often gets away with its terrible treatment of livestock is not grounds for legalising bestiality, but an argument for stricter laws and/or enforcement.
*Wrong in the "it should be regulated against" sense, not in the "well I disagree with it, but it's his business what he does with his property as long as the neighbours aren't bothered by the howling when he fucks his dog in the stabwounds" sense.
EDIT: Dammit, beaten to the punch by Shug.
SubJeff on 17/1/2008 at 00:11
What you're missing Dinky is that although YOU find battery chicken farming to be cruel it is not considered as cruel as animal rape, and there are in fact standards of animal welfare that farmers must adhere to.
Scots Taffer on 17/1/2008 at 00:13
Nothing much more to add other than a "thank you" to Shug (for saying more concisely what I've more or less been angling around most of thread) and a "well, I still don't have a fucking clue what you're on about" to SD, but that's nothing new. The fact that you can say "oh well I can't make people be vegan so I guess I don't care if people fuck animals" IS MINDBOGGLING to me, it's complete abuse and like Morte and others are trying to say (and I said in an earlier fucking post) is that it's not a double standard (due to the food industry), but rather a poor state of affairs being suggested to be made poorer! Animals have rights too, y'know.
My general point with the issue of enlightenment allowing us to see past social taboo barriers isn't doing anything other than actually lowering our standards as a human race about what we're willing to inflict upon other people/creatures and whether decency and good taste should be held to some kind of account, we are supposed to be a civilisation after all.
Papy on 17/1/2008 at 01:07
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Except it's a real concern. I was wondering who was going to call it a "card" in the usual callous fashion.
No, it's not a real concern at all. Having sex with children is illegal, incestuous or not. Rape is illegal, incestuous or not. I don't see why allowing the two
adults this thread is about to live together would change anything to this fact. The idea that a judge could not make a difference between rape and consensual sex between two adults is plain bullshit.
In the end, this is only another case of trying to bring up something unrelated in order to associate its emotional impact. It's just another form of Godwin's law. If that's not "playing a card", then I don't know what is.
Scots Taffer on 17/1/2008 at 01:15
And the whole point is not about bringing up a side-topic to take away from the main-topic, the main topic is fine (socially reprehensible and personally a bit repugnant, but fine), however my point is that through the relaxing of laws on incest it allows the lines to become blurred and sets the stage for pollution of the law further down the track - let us call it the difference between theory and praxis.
Also, as has been pointed out, what about the sexual age of consent? When are we saying that brother and sister can start having sex? What kind of bizarre dynamic does that add to a family? What about incest destroying the entire notion of family?
PigLick on 17/1/2008 at 01:42
Why does sex cause so much shit - I reckon people should be neutered at birth, but a process which is reversable, and that way when you get older you can EARN and PROVE your right to engage in sexual activity.
Shug on 17/1/2008 at 03:19
PigLick, you've earnt your white stripe
Swiss Mercenary on 17/1/2008 at 07:00
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
What about incest destroying the entire notion of family?
The Mom, Dad, and Two Kids living in Suburbia one?
