McBell
Admiral Obvious
says who?
you?
:biglaugh:
Define natural.
Then refute it with something other than your bold empty claims.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
you?
:biglaugh:
Define natural.
Then refute it with something other than your bold empty claims.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It is an appeal to numbers fallacy.
No different than McDonald's boasting: 1 Billion Served.
Most people do not think Hitler was wrong simply because a bunch of people think Hitler was wrong.
Nice try though.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
This answer is a fair indication that you fail to fully comprehend the question.
Ah, so infertile humans are to remain celibate their whole lives, right?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
What? It's wrong just because the various pieces don't fit together properly?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I am particularly interested in this "order of the species" he is rambling about.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
First of all, you cannot prove something that is a subjective opinion. I can't stand the idea of eating oysters. I'd throw up if I ever had to. They're disgusting. But that's just my opinion. I can't prove they're disgusting, I can only prove that I think they're disgusting. Someone else can have a totally different viewpoint, and that's fine.
Likewise with bestiality. If you don't like it, if you think it's wrong, then fine. You don't have to do it. But don't think that you can pass off your subjective opinions as objective truth that applies to everyone.
And secondly, are you really asking US to do YOUR homework? I can't prove that bestiality is depraved. First of all, I don't think it is. Secondly, even if I did, I could not prove that my subjective opinion is an objective fact.
Argument from popularity is indeed a fallacy. Do you really think that just because a lot of people believe it that it increases the likelihood of it being true? You do know that at one time most people thought the Earth was flat, yes?
So real dolls are out then? I have to break up with Inflatable Ingrid, my polythene pal?
Such as?
And, pray tell, what is this "pseudo-reproduction"?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Alphabetical? Aardvarks can never have sex with zebras, no matter how attractive they find their stripes.
In order of size? Oh, but then we'd have trouble with the many different breeds of dog.
In order of how high they can jump? Elephants, unable to jump at all and thus no longer allowed to have sex with anyone, are doomed to go extinct.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I am sorry, but I believe you are missing the point.
It does not matter if it is depraved; what matters is if it should be illegal - this is not about morality, it is about whether or not there are negative outcomes for those involved if those individuals do not give their informed consent to those outcomes or directly attributable objective negative outcomes to society in general (such as environmental pollution); otherwise there is no victim, if there is no victim, there is no crime.
Murder has very clear negative outcomes for at least one of the individuals involved and should therefore be illegal (by comparison, voluntary Euthanasia does not and therefore should not be illegal); same with rape and by extension paedophilia (where most people would contend that almost all children cannot give informed consent and is therefore an act of rape rather than a separate crime). Incest however should not be a crime unless the parties do not give their informed consent to the act (in which case it is a rape).
In my view, the ONLY possibly justifiable objective reason that bestiality could be argued as being justly illegal is if there is no informed consent (which most people would argue is always the case - though some would suggest that if the animal is the dominant of the pairing then it could be argued that it is no longer a crime).
Last edited:
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
A taboo originating from the idea that we are better than everything else; consuming them therefore is fair game.... but to 'consort' with them... why that means that the person is almost considering that animal as being the equivalent or equal of a person in some respects... some people do not like the fact that others might consider animals to be of a similar 'level' in some respects.
I would agree, however there is a significant number who suggest arousal does not mean consent (there is some validity in this perspective), a lesser number suggest that even when they are the dominant of the paring they are STILL not consenting (personally I find no validity in this perspective).
Last edited:
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
99% of your comments are regarding semantics only.
Obviously you are not interested in the issue of bestiality but just a point scoring excercise.
I am sure you would have more fun on a 'Use of the English language' type debate forum.
I can give you some links if you like (although that would be technically against the rules here so I'd better not)
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
No, because they can still partake in pseudo-reproduction as mentioned.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Is that a code word for sexual intercourse?
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
this is why we have judges who have the power to make decisions.
In their wisdom they have declared bestiality to be depraved and wrong hence it is banned in most places.
You are just hiding behind semantics here in order to try and further your libertarian stance.
How about my other question then.
Isn't the banning of anything just an appeal to numbers fallacy?
It would be according to this kind of reasoning.
Male and female human having intercourse that would lead to reproduction in its natural form. (ie: the use of contraception, infertility issues etc would count as pseudo)
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
How about necrophilia then?
No victim here.
A dead body is an inanimate object therefore consent is not an issue.
Err...what, excuse me!
Which cave did you just crawl out of?
Incest creates imbeciles so yes, it does affect society.
Not to mention it is perverted, immoral and against God's law.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I have already outlined my response to necrophilia in this thread (http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...uld-bestiality-against-law-7.html#post2756359 post 272)
Society is involved how? Unless 'society' happens to be the name of one of the people taking part then 'society' can mind its own business - unless as I stated, there are directly attributable objective negative outcomes. Incest creates imbeciles? I would love to see your evidence for that - however I will concede that a sustained course of breeding between individuals with extremely high levels of genetic similarity (very close blood) may result in an increased level of genetic deformities; note the stipulations in that statement as they are very important.
Keep your God's laws to yourself - I refuse to be the subject of your immoral 'moral' tyranny.
Society is involved how? Unless 'society' happens to be the name of one of the people taking part then 'society' can mind its own business - unless as I stated, there are directly attributable objective negative outcomes. Incest creates imbeciles? I would love to see your evidence for that - however I will concede that a sustained course of breeding between individuals with extremely high levels of genetic similarity (very close blood) may result in an increased level of genetic deformities; note the stipulations in that statement as they are very important.
Keep your God's laws to yourself - I refuse to be the subject of your immoral 'moral' tyranny.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
That is because 100% of your comments are from your hiding place behind the semantics.
You are most excellent at pointing out your issues.
Problem is that you try so hard to pin them on others.
No thank you.
I have no need of your worthless source materials.
i mean, they are not doing YOU any good, now are they?
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
I don't actually use them myself but I'm sure there are plenty of places where folk happily debate semantics all day long.
Why don't we just stick with the issue of bestiality and agree to disagree over certain uses of the language - that would be a good start at least.
Why don't we just stick with the issue of bestiality and agree to disagree over certain uses of the language - that would be a good start at least.
The risk of abomination is reason enuf to ban animal-human sex.
Hybrids? <shudder>
Look & compare....if you dare!
"Sex & The City" should've been called "Sex & The Stable".
Hybrids? <shudder>
Look & compare....if you dare!
"Sex & The City" should've been called "Sex & The Stable".