Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[nnmartin]

Here's a couple of bones for you to chew on:

https://depravityscale.org/depscale/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3675057.stm


the key section from second link:

Bestiality and necrophilia become specific offences for the first time.

 

[nnmartin]

Of course with behaviour in general it is often impossible to scientifically prove whether it is depraved or not - this can apply to virtually everything.

Therefore judges are required - as in the case with the second link.

Are you more qualified than a judge?

 

[Tiberius]

Here's a couple of bones for you to chew on:

Oh goody...

https://depravityscale.org/depscale/

Oh, I like this...

On the FAQ page, it has the question, "How do I determine what is especially depraved, somewhat depraved, or not depraved?"

And the answer it gives is... "Use your own personal opinion."

So this isn't an objective measurement of depravity. It's a vote! Majority consensus! Bloody hell, if all laws were made like that, where would we be? Black people still forced to take a different bus? Would women be allowed to vote? Popularity is no way to determine an objective truth.

BBC NEWS | UK | New UK sex laws come into force

the key section from second link:

So in other words, they just decide that bestiality is now against the law. Funny how they don't say WHY. Sounds to me like they just did it because someone suggested it and nobody wanted to be the one to question it.

Seriously, is your best argument going to be, "Bestiality should be illegal because it's illegal"?

Go and read the thread title please. it asks WHY. You've never given a reason. Or do you think that this, "Well, other people are doing it," is a good reason?

So, both of these arguments are still the "argument from personal opinion," just dressed up a little bit to sound snazzier.

Of course with behaviour in general it is often impossible to scientifically prove whether behaviour is depraved or not - this can apply to virtually everything.

So now you are chainging your tune and saying there is no way to determine if something is depraved or not?

Therefore judges are required - as in the case with the second link.

Are you more qualified than a judge?

You care to explain how a judge is capable of making an objective definition about a subjective term?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here's a couple of bones for you to chew on:

https://depravityscale.org/depscale/

BBC NEWS | UK | New UK sex laws come into force


the key section from second link:

And wouldn't you know, the first link has nothing to do with bestiality, and specifically states it is a subjective measurement.
As for the second I do believe we have covered that laws are not always just.

Of course with behaviour in general it is often impossible to scientifically prove whether behaviour is depraved or not - this can apply to virtually everything.

Therefore judges are required - as in the case with the second link.

Are you more qualified than a judge?

Judges should not be moral guardians. There are also many corrupt judges. And just because they made bestiality illegal doesn't make it wrong. In America it is illegal to grow cannabis indica, even though it has absolutely no recreational value but has hundreds of industrial uses. It was also legal for Ford to knowingly manufacture the Pinto and sell it on car lots, a car that was prone to exploding upon a rear impact. It was legal for them to sell this and eat a few law suits because that was cheaper than fixing the problem.
Illegal does not mean wrong, and legal does not mean right.

 

[nnmartin]

So now you are chainging your tune and saying there is no way to determine if something is depraved or not?

You care to explain how a judge is capable of making an objective definition about a subjective term?

If we follow your logic there is no way of determining whether anything is depraved or not.

How about necrophilia - can it be proved that is is depraved?

Now you are making out that a judge is not capable of making a final decision - how very arrogant of you.


It's a good job that we have sensible judges making decisions rather than naive libertarian idealists.

 

[nnmartin]

And wouldn't you know, the first link has nothing to do with bestiality, and specifically states it is a subjective measurement.

the first link was intended as background information only.

udges should not be moral guardians. There are also many corrupt judges. And just because they made bestiality illegal doesn't make it wrong

In which case , who decides then?

yourself?

In America it is illegal to grow cannabis indica, even though it has absolutely no recreational value but has hundreds of industrial uses.

Back to the pointless analogies again I see.

Round and round the merry old wheel we go!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If we follow your logic there is no way of determining whether anything is depraved or not.

Depraved is a subjective term. This means that what is depraved is in the eye of the beholder.

How about necrophilia - can it be proved that is is depraved?

It can't be. I wouldn't even call it depraved myself. Disrespectful, yes, because there is a pretty good chance it goes against the wishes of the deceased. But such a person can face a potentially very humiliating scene because there is a disease that you can only get from screwing a dead person.

Now you are making out that a judge is not capable of making a final decision - how very arrogant of you.

So it's arrogant to question a judge? It's arrogant to go to a court above that judge? That is not arrogance, it is a sign of a free society.
But why should one judge have the final decision? After all a judge where I live struck down our fourth amendment right to refuse unlawful and unwarranted police entry. And because the judge does not have the final say-so, this is being challenged. Even the highest courts are challenged, such as when the American Supreme Court passed Citizens United, a decision that is being challenged.

 

[nnmartin]

Depraved is a subjective term. This means that what is depraved is in the eye of the beholder.

Let's revisit the definition shall we. (from dictionary.com)

World English Dictionary
depraved (dɪˈpreɪvd) — adj
morally bad or debased; corrupt; perverted

RE: necrophilia

It can't be. I wouldn't even call it depraved myself. Disrespectful, yes, because there is a pretty good chance it goes against the wishes of the deceased.

So if you think that necrophilia is not perverted then it is hardly surprising you believe bestiality to be fine too.

What kind of a person are you?

So it's arrogant to question a judge? It's arrogant to go to a court above that judge?

We are not talking about a judge, but a national law passed banning bestiality.

This would have been decided by many judges and panels over a period of time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So if you think that necrophilia is not perverted then it is hardly surprising you believe bestiality to be fine too.

I didn't say it wasn't perverted. I simply said it wasn't depraved, because I know that what is depraved is up to society. If you had actually read my post, you would have saw I said it is disrespectful to the deceased.

Let's revisit the definition shall we. (from dictionary.com)

World English Dictionary
depraved (dɪˈpreɪvd) — adj
morally bad or debased; corrupt; perverted

And any first year undergrad social science student knows that morals are arbitrarily assigned by the given culture being examined.
If you want a good read about morality, read Nietzsche's books The Dawn, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morality. After completely reading these books even the blind can see that morals are artificial.

We are not talking about a judge, but a national law passed banning bestiality.

This would have been decided by many judges and panels over a period of time.

Many judicial panels ruled, at one time, that homosexual and interracial marriages are illegal. Actually today many of states in America have banned homosexual marriage. Why is it that these people get to decide how other people live, especially when the behavior in question is consensual and does not harm anyone involved? Until very recently it was illegal for people who are openly homosexual to serve in the US military, and panel overturned a law that a prior panel set into motion.
And of course it used to be legal for a husband to beat and rape his wife. But judicial review turned that law down as well.

 

[nnmartin]

I didn't say it wasn't perverted. I simply said it wasn't depraved, because I know that what is depraved is up to society.

But I assume that the society you come from and live in would regard necrophilia (and bestiality) as depraved and therefore so should you.

Or are your morals higher than the general consensus of the nation?

 

[McBell]

But I assume that the society you come from and live in would regard necrophilia (and bestiality) as depraved and therefore so should you.

Or are your morals higher than the general consensus of the nation?

Right back to an appeal to numbers fallacy.

 

[blackout]

If we follow your logic there is no way of determining whether anything is depraved or not.

How about necrophilia - can it be proved that is is depraved?

Now you are making out that a judge is not capable of making a final decision - how very arrogant of you.


It's a good job that we have sensible judges making decisions rather than naive libertarian idealists.

Are you making out that libertarian judges are not capable of making a final decision? How very arrogant of you.

 

[payak]

forget just religion for a moment, it also goes against the laws of nature.
hence the reason he died as horse and man dont belong.
if you cannot reproduce with a species they dont belong.

and lets be honest for once, the man needed mental help, its not normal.

 

[Tiberius]

forget just religion for a moment, it also goes against the laws of nature.

And what, pray tell, are these laws of nature?

And if it is so unnatural, why do we see it in the animal kingdom?

hence the reason he died as horse and man dont belong.

He died because he was badly injured. Would it have been okay if it was with an animal that could have injured him?

if you cannot reproduce with a species they dont belong.

Reproduction is the way to determine if you can have sex? No kids = no sex?

and lets be honest for once, the man needed mental help, its not normal.

Claiming that he was mentally imbalanced in order to show he was mentally imbalanced?

 

[payak]

you cannot argue in anyway that sex with animals is ok.
look at a horse, look at a man, look at the order of the species.
it is not natural, your argument is ridiculous

 

[nnmartin]

Tiberius and his gang of merry men will not admit it is ridiculous until bestiality can be proven 100% scientifically that it is not depraved/wrong.

Who can prove whether rape, pedophilia, murder, incest and the like are depraved?

Tiberius, Shadow Wolf - can you do that??

 

[nnmartin]

Are you making out that libertarian judges are not capable of making a final decision? How very arrogant of you.

Look who popped into the dungeon for a jolly old troll!

 

[nnmartin]

Right back to an appeal to numbers fallacy.

It's not a fallacy at all.

Was Hitler wrong? - most people seem to think so.

It can't be proved though.

But his actions were still wrong.

 

[nnmartin]

And what, pray tell, are these laws of nature?
And if it is so unnatural, why do we see it in the animal kingdom?

How about human to have sex with a human only?

That is a good general rule with various exceptions of course.

Reproduction is the way to determine if you can have sex? No kids = no sex?

seems a fair judge , either the real thing or at least pseudo-reproduction.

 

[McBell]

Tiberius and his gang of merry men will not admit it is ridiculous until bestiality can be proven 100% scientifically that it is not depraved/wrong.

Bold faced lie.

Who can prove whether rape, pedophilia, murder, incest and the like are depraved?

Tiberius, Shadow Wolf - can you do that??

So you admit that you cannot prove the alleged depravity, but still continue to make the empty claim?