Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[nnmartin]

post 187 was the one in which you tried to talk your way around a dictionary definition of bestiality by saying that it did not really mean having sex with animals - ie: hiding behind semantics (yet again)

at that point I realised it would be of no use to provide further sources or links.

 

[McBell]

This coming from a man who has offered virtually nothing to the thread other than sniping comments or bland generic pat responses as mentioned above.:sarcastic

Your inability to see past your own nose is not any fault of mine.

 

[Tiberius]

post 187 was the one in which you tried to talk your way around a dictionary definition of bestiality by saying that it did not really mean having sex with animals - ie: hiding behind semantics (yet again)

at that point I realised it would be of no use to provide further sources or links.

Okay, let's go and have a look at what was actually said...

You posted a website that provided a definition of bestiality.

The website defined it like this:

bes·ti·al·i·ty
n.
1. The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal.
2. Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality.
3. Sexual relations between a human and an animal.

The first one isn't talking about sex between a person and an animal, is it? I don't think so. However, if I am mistaken, please feel free to explain my error.

The second one also does not state that it applies to acts of sex twixt human and beast. Activities that could fit into the second definition are throwing things around to destroy them while screaming and yelling, defecating in public, jumping on people and mauling them.

The third definition is the only one that clearly states it applies to sex.

Am I right or am I wrong?

Now, you claim that I claimed that bestiality did not refer to people having sex with animals. Please show me where I said that.

I said that the second definition - something depraved or brutal - does not necessarily apply to having sex with an animal. You just assume that it does, because you think that sex with animals is depraved.

But this is just one more case of you assuming the thing you want to prove. You assume that the actual act of sex with an animal is depraved, so you assume that the second definition must in all cases apply to human/animal sex. And then you claim that this is evidence that the act is depraved.

 

[nnmartin]

is this supposed to be an example of you not resorting to semantics? (when all else fails of course)

The dictionary definition above clearly makes out that bestiality means having sex with animals(3) and is also a depraved act(2).

Ok, it doesn't specifically join 2 and 3 together because being a dictionary it does not need to.

The second definition does say "Conduct or an action marked by depravity or brutality", but I see no reason to think that it refers to sexual activity between a Human and an animal.

no reason? Just a random thought by the dictionary publisher then?:sarcastic

How much clearer do you need it?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Those are two separate definitions - while it is logical to assume that the people who came up with those definitions in common usage (not in the dictionary itself but prior to that codification) saw the two as being linked, the two are not linked through the dictionary itself as that would be a moral judgement rather than a statement of fact.

 

[Tiberius]

is this supposed to be an example of you not resorting to semantics? (when all else fails of course)

And is this supposed to be an example of you trying to connect two things just because you want to show a connection between the two?

The dictionary definition above clearly makes out that bestiality means having sex with animals(3) and is also a depraved act(2).

So what? Just because a dictionary lists two different definitions, does not follow that they are related.

Ok, it doesn't specifically join 2 and 3 together because being a dictionary it does not need to.

Ah, so you just assume.

no reason? Just a random thought by the dictionary publisher then?:sarcastic

You seem unaware that one word can have several different unrelated definitions.

How much clearer do you need it?

Clearer than your assumptions.

 

[nnmartin]

Try going to an English language teachers' forum - I'm sure you'll get some top answers there (though you may die of boredom first)

 

[nnmartin]

TIBERIUS
Join Date: Apr 2006
Gender:

Posts: 1,158
Frubals: 176796

We now have exactly the same number of posts - amazing huh?

nnmartin :
Join Date: Oct 2011
Gender:

Posts: 1,158
Frubals: 35

 

[nnmartin]

must be a signal for you to start your annual thread

did you leave the forum in the past for a while or something?

 

[Tiberius]

Why are you talking about this here? haven't you got anything better to do? Or don't you have anything worthwhile to contribute to the thread?

 

[Tiberius]

I guess not...

 

[nnmartin]

feel free to re-direct the thread to something that has not already said 100 times already by both camps then sure, why not.

I'll join in again then, but at the moment we are just going around in circles - hence my attempt at a little light interlude.

 

[Tiberius]

So you admit that all you have is "Ew, it's icky!", logical fallacies and unsupportable claims?

 

[nnmartin]

not at all - I did give you an extract from the DSM which also states that bestiality is depraved - yet of course, you chose to disbelieve that too.

I would say that is quite a supportable source, created by professional psychiatrists and the like.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

not at all - I did give you an extract from the DSM which also states that bestiality is depraved - yet of course, you chose to disbelieve that too.

But the DSM doesn't say it's "depraved" (because it is not their place or responsibility to place labels of moral judgement of behaviors and certain conditions, and doing so would in itself be considered an immoral practice) and I'm pretty sure we went over that among psychologist and psychiatrist the issue of mental illnesses and disorders is a sensitive and highly debated one as it is based on cultural norms. Because it is solely based upon cultural norms (one of the criteria for a disorder is even that it must be statistically rare) there are many psychiatrist and psychologist that argue mental illnesses and disorders do not exist. Afterall it wouldn't be statistically rare if 98% of the population had schizophrenia, and because it would be so common it would be normal and no one would see it as an abnormality.
And of course the DSM is always changing, such as how the DSM used to consider homosexuality as a disorder but now it is no where to be found within the DSM.

 

[Tiberius]

not at all - I did give you an extract from the DSM which also states that bestiality is depraved - yet of course, you chose to disbelieve that too.

I would say that is quite a supportable source, created by professional psychiatrists and the like.

Provide an objective method of determining whether something is depraved or not. How is depravity measured? Is bestiality more or less depraved than scatophilia? Scatophagia?

Like I said, all you can do is present opinion as fact. Logical fallacy.

 

[nnmartin]

Is bestiality more or less depraved than scatophilia? Scatophagia?

Sounds like a good title for your next thread.

How is depravity measured?

Off-topic

Like I said, all you can do is present opinion as fact. Logical fallacy.

stifles a yawn....

 

[nnmartin]

Afterall it wouldn't be statistically rare if 98% of the population had schizophrenia, and because it would be so common it would be normal and no one would see it as an abnormality.

logical fallacy

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds like a good title for your next thread.



Off-topic



stifles a yawn....

It's not off topic. You say depraved, and we want to know how do you measure it? Afterall you cannot even construct a hypothesis if the variables cannot be measured. A review committee would simply look at your proposed research and laugh you out of the room, and when word gets out that happened your academic credibility would be destroyed.

logical fallacy

How is it a logical fallacy? We think marriage among first cousins is abnormal, but in some societies it is the preferred mating and is not considered abnormal to them. The only one with a logical fallacy is you.

 

[Tiberius]

Off-topic

No it isn't. You are making the claim that bestiality is depraved, and I am asking how you have reached this conclusion. Now, depravity is either objective or subjective. If it is objective, then you must be able to measure it. If it is subjective, then it's just your opinion and I don't give a rat's.