Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[Tiberius]

Reduced to making off topic comments now?

 

[McBell]

Except Tiberius of course.

Except Tiberius never said it.

Not seeing a problem in something is a good as saying it is normal - or are you to have yet another semantics escape routine?

Blatant strawman.

Your desperation is revealing just how dishonest you are willing to be in order to make yourself look foolish.

 

[nnmartin]

Reduced to making off topic comments now?

4 T's = The Tiberius Troll Thread.

no other reason you are on this thread but for pure argument's sake.

Clear enough anyway but now you've just started your nonsense up again with another user.

re:

I don't see other species inventing television, using the internet, traveling into space, using GPS, performing surgery, reading books, hailing a cab, cooking food for the consumption of others, cooking food at all, using electricity, recording music, using written language made up of symbols representing sounds or inventing sunglasses.

as if any of that waffle has anything whatsoever to do with bestiality:areyoucra


I've had enough of this garbage now - I'll leave you in the good company of Mestemia as he seems to have joined the fray again.

for some reason he seems to support bestiality as well.

 

[Tiberius]

4 T's = The Tiberius Troll Thread.

And where exactly have I been trolling?

no other reason you are on this thread but for pure argument's sake.

I'm on this thread to put forth my argument that bestiality is not harmful and that there is no logical grounds for making it illegal.

And it also seems that lately I have been trying to explain to you why your arguments are nothing but appeals to emotion and logical fallacies.

Clear enough anyway but now you've just started your nonsense up again with another user.

re:

I don't see other species inventing television, using the internet, traveling into space, using GPS, performing surgery, reading books, hailing a cab, cooking food for the consumption of others, cooking food at all, using electricity, recording music, using written language made up of symbols representing sounds or inventing sunglasses.

as if any of that waffle has anything whatsoever to do with bestiality:areyoucra

It was in direct response to Surrealist Monk saying that bestiality is wrong because it is not natural. So I posted a rather short list of other things which are not natural yet are not considered wrong.

I've had enough of this garbage now - I'll leave you in the good company of Mestemia as he seems to have joined the fray again.

for some reason he seems to support bestiality as well.

Bye!

 

[McBell]

4 T's = The Tiberius Troll Thread.

Except that it is not Tiberius who is trolling this thread.

That would be you.

no other reason you are on this thread but for pure argument's sake.

Yet he is the one supporting his position on the topic with something other than wishful thinking, logical fallacies, and the "ick" factor.

Clear enough anyway but now you've just started your nonsense up again with another user.

Perhaps this other user will actually present an honest discussion and not rely solely on his own wishful thinking, logical fallacies, and the"ick" factor.

I've had enough of this garbage now - I'll leave you in the good company of Mestemia as he seems to have joined the fray again.

for some reason he seems to support bestiality as well.

Your continued ad hominems are not the least bit surprising.
I mean, it is all you have left.

Your inability to formulate and or present a logical, coherent argument in support of your position is your own fault.
To be reduced to mere name calling and dictating beliefs to others should be an embarrassment for you.

Sadly, you seem to to be proud of your ignorance and asininity.

 

[nnmartin]

this thread has gone awfully quiet - come on chaps!

Tiberius and Mestemia - come on , Uncle Bob is back in town, time to play!

 

[Qymaen]

It shouldn´t be ilegal.

Disney approves

He became a human.

As for bestiality, that stuff creeps the hell out of me.

 

[nnmartin]

It's foul , I agree.

It has it's supporters though - on this very thread.

 

[Tiberius]

Once again the best you can do is, "It's icky, therefore it is wrong"?

Bloody hell, that's a weak argument. I've seen tea stronger than that.

 

[nnmartin]

what is your argument for legalising it though, other than it doesn't harm anyone?

neither does gambling, drug abuse, prostitution, necrophilia plus many others - most of those are banned in many places though.


not just that bestiality is icky - it is depraved, against the order of nature, a from of rape and a health risk.

of course this has been said many times over yet you refuse to believe any of it regardless of source just in order to continue your pointless debating practice.

 

[Tiberius]

what is your argument for legalising it though, other than it doesn't harm anyone?

Well, I always thought that I was saying that the argument "Bestiality should be banned because it's harmful" was wrong because it isn't harmful, but you feel free to twist my words, okay?

neither does gambling,

Oh really?

drug abuse,

Wait, you are actually telling me that you don't think drug abuse cauises any harm? What about people who die of overdoses? The fact that addicts harm their families by stealing to get enough money for their next fix? These things aren't in the "harm" category to you?

prostitution,

Prostitution is banned because of puritanical attitudes towards sex.

necrophilia

Because sticking your penis into a rotting corpse is such a healthy thing to do.

plus many others - most of those are banned in many places though.

And most for good reason. And, btw, prostitution is legal where I live. Indeed, the fact that it is legal in so many places suggests that not everyone shares the "Let's ban it because I don't like it!" attitude that you seem to have.

not just that bestiality is icky

What have you got apart from icky?

- it is depraved,

In other words, icky...

against the order of nature,

Then why do so many animal species engage in it?

a from of rape

You have not shown that. And if a dog mounts a woman on all fours, is she raping the dog? How is she forcing the dog to do anything?

and a health risk.

You have not shown that bestiality poses any greater health risk than sex with a person.

of course this has been said many times over yet you refuse to believe any of it regardless of source just in order to continue your pointless debating practice.

That's because the source is you saying it over and over again without providing any evidence to support your claims.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

what is your argument for legalising it though, other than it doesn't harm anyone?

neither does gambling, drug abuse, prostitution, necrophilia plus many others - most of those are banned in many places though.

In which case, why are those others banned too? Chances are that someone who believes that bestiality should not be against the law is of the opinion that if there are no victims there is no crime, if that is the case, they probably do not think the others is a problem (although IMO necrophilia is an issue because of the inability to obtain consent not just from the person, but also the family of the deceased - who would likely be unwilling to allow it, and even if they were, would they have the right to do so? no i dont think so)

The most simple argument that can be made for the legalisation of such an act is this: "If an action does not 'harm' any individual (or their property) directly involved in the action; or if any individual 'harmed' by the action has given their informed consent - then the action should not be illegal."

 

[nnmartin]

so are you saying then that things which do cause harm should be banned?

Because that would mean we would have to ban things like smoking and alcohol plus a whole host of others.

Using your definition does not allow for very clear criteria rules.

 

[nnmartin]

Wait, you are actually telling me that you don't think drug abuse cauises any harm? What about people who die of overdoses? The fact that addicts harm their families by stealing to get enough money for their next fix? These things aren't in the "harm" category to you?

Firstly , a link to a piece about 'problem gambling' - what does that prove?

There are plenty of alcoholics out there - should we thus ban alcohol completely for the rest of the population?

Most people who gamble do so responsibly and for fun.

And if a dog mounts a woman on all fours, is she raping the dog? How is she forcing the dog to do anything?

A women can actually be charged with sexual assault, even rape no doubt.

For example she could hold the dog down, force it to become aroused and then deposit herself on it.


How about horse racing - I remember you said you were opposed to that.

In which case why is that cruel yet sexually forcing yourself upon an animal not?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

so are you saying then that things which do cause harm should be banned?

Provided that the 'victim' was actually someone involved in the action and that they had NOT given their informed consent.

Because that would mean we would have to ban things like smoking and alcohol plus a whole host of others.

No it would not, because the person involved is giving their informed consent (although passive smoking would potentially be some form of 'assault' under those circumstances if the passive smoker did not give their informed consent)

Using your definition does not allow for very clear criteria rules.

Actually it allows for relatively clear criteria, though granted the following would need to be clarified: Who is 'involved' in the action? What constitutes harm? What constitutes informed consent?

However that is a damn sight better than your 'I dont like it - it offends me - so it should be illegal'

 

[nnmartin]

How about majority/consensus rule then.

I am sure most people oppose bestiality - isn't that a good enough reason to ban it?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No.

By those standards, slavery would be still be legal.

 

[McBell]

what is your argument for legalising it though, other than it doesn't harm anyone?

That there needs to be a legitimate legal reason to make it illegal.

How yucky you think it is is not a legal argument.
"The Bible says" is not a legal argument.


That animals cannot give legal consent, is a legitimate legal reason.

 

[McBell]

The most simple argument that can be made for the legalisation of such an act is this: "If an action does not 'harm' any individual (or their property) directly involved in the action; or if any individual 'harmed' by the action has given their informed consent - then the action should not be illegal."

I disagree.

The most simple argument would be "until such time as a legitimate legal argument can be presented in support of making it illegal, it should be legal."

 

[McBell]

Firstly , a link to a piece about 'problem gambling' - what does that prove?

that based on the same criteria you have presented in this thread for making beastiality illegal, gambling should be illegal.

There are plenty of alcoholics out there - should we thus ban alcohol completely for the rest of the population?

See how easy it is to use your criteria to ban anything we want.

Most people who gamble do so responsibly and for fun.

Source please.

A women can actually be charged with sexual assault, even rape no doubt.

Really?
Where?

For example she could hold the dog down, force it to become aroused and then deposit herself on it.

Blatant strawman.

How about horse racing - I remember you said you were opposed to that.

In which case why is that cruel yet sexually forcing yourself upon an animal not?

Another blatant strawman.