Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[nnmartin]

so much for the new angle then

I am happy to move forward, are you?

Your turn to try and redirect.


Come up with any question not already been over and I'll try to respond openly.

that sounds fair enough to me.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

For me it is about two things:

I do not like other people forcing their perspective on morality upon me
I do not like force being used by society to control things that do not have direct, objective, negative outcomes to society or negative outcomes for people involved who do not consent.

 

[riley2112]

For me it is about two things:

I do not like other people forcing their perspective on morality upon me
I do not like force being used by society to control things that do not have direct, objective, negative outcomes to society or negative outcomes for people involved who do not consent.

So then weed should be legal. :cigar::yes:

 

[InformedIgnorance]

So then weed should be legal. :cigar::yes:

I am quite libertarian on the issue, however I would stipulate that I consider second hand smoking to be a form of assault should the other person not want to be exposed to such a thing and the property owner not having designated it as an area where smoking can occur (and if the smoke is blowing across the property boundaries then in this case the issue of the bordering property owner's position also arises).

Likewise driving while intoxicated and so forth - not the smoking, not the growing (at the absolute LEAST I would make it a controlled substance like tobacco, if not outright decriminalisation), not the selling - but rather any activity that harms or there is any reasonable claim could harm the public or a member thereof in a direct, objective negative way (such as the potential for a traffic accident). But these I would not treat as 'drug crimes' but rather crimes of reckless endangerment in the case of driving while intoxicated, assault, etc.... I would treat them based upon what the (potential) negative outcome was, not what the person happened to inhale prior to it.

 

[riley2112]

I am quite libertarian on the issue, however I would stipulate that I consider second hand smoking to be a form of assault should the other person not want to be exposed to such a thing and the property owner not having designated it as an area where smoking can occur (and if the smoke is blowing across the property boundaries then this is then the issue of the bordering property owner's position also arises).

Likewise driving while intoxicated and so forth - not the smoking, not the growing, not the selling - but rather any activity that harms or there is any reasonable claim could harm the public or a member thereof in a direct, objective negative way (such as the potential for a traffic accident). But these I would not treat as 'drug crimes' but rather crimes of reckless endangerment in the case of driving while intoxicated, assault, etc.... I would treat them based upon what the (potential) negative outcome was, not what the person happened to inhale prior to it.

agreed.

 

[Tiberius]

I have actually tried changing the direction of the topic several times though but keep getting pushed back into the corner of objectivity v. subjectivity.

That's because you keep trying to present your subjective opinion as objective fact. Would you like me to provide a list of all these instances?

Stop doing that and we'll stop calling you out on it.

so what is it with you all that really rocks your boat with this issue?

I imagine it must be about Libertarian free will v. Big government or something like that, right?

Or is it simply a case of Law making and the precepts required for it?

Well, for me it's the simple idea that if two participants want to have sex with each other then they should be allowed to. As long as you don't hurt anyone, I think you should be free to do whatever you want in your bedroom. And I think everyone should have that right.

 

[nnmartin]

Ok, I can accept that then and move on to the next issue........

This is - Age of Consent of animal.

does this play a factor in the debate for you?

for humans it is usually 16.

How about with an animal?

How would you know if you weren't a vet or owner how old the animal was?
Agreed, animals mature earlier , perhaps a female dog by age 2.

But how could you possibly know and wouldn't some bestiality be a kind of human to animal pedophilia?

Another reason to ban it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Establishing an equivalent biological age is a relatively easy thing to do... so I do not believe that portion of your argument is particularly sound.

 

[nnmartin]

Ok, yes that could be done.

But do you really think that anyone who actually has sex with an animal figures out the age first before acting?

Unlikely I think.

How could you really know how old the local farmyard sheep was?

Can you really see anyone going up to the local farmer and saying - 'excuse me farmer Brown but can you give me the exact age of sheep number 261 because we are thinking of having intercourse' ........

 

[Tiberius]

Ok, I can accept that then and move on to the next issue........

This is - Age of Consent of animal.

does this play a factor in the debate for you?

for humans it is usually 16.

How about with an animal?

How would you know if you weren't a vet or owner how old the animal was?
Agreed, animals mature earlier , perhaps a female dog by age 2.

But how could you possibly know and wouldn't some bestiality be a kind of human to animal pedophilia?

Another reason to ban it.

First of all, age of consent is an arbitrary thing.

You say it is 16. I assume that's what it is where you are, although it does vary in different places.

The day before someone's 16 birthday, it is illegal for them to have sex. They are not 16 yet. They have not reached the age of consent. But the next day it is perfectly fine for that person to have sex. But really, what happens to that person? Nothing. In one day, they don't magically become more mature. Nothing happens to them that allows them to deal with having sex. It's just an arbitrary age that was put in place because people wanted a law that said people shouldn't be allowed to have sex until they are ready, and someone had to decide when that was.

And the fact is that I;ve seen 14 year olds that were emotionally mature enough to have sex, and I've heard of 40 year olds that are NOT emotionally mature enough! So just because someone made a law about it doesn't mean it is right for everyone.

But for an animal? Well, I am very much against the idea of someone using a puppy for sexual pleasure. A puppy is not physically or emotionally mature. But if a dog has been raised well and is physically mature and responds to sexual signals from his or her own species, then I'd say it's fairly safe to assume that the dog can deal with having sex.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Come up with any question not already been over and I'll try to respond openly.

that sounds fair enough to me.

We've been over them all. Several times. There's nothing new to discuss, except trying to make you see how morality solely dependent upon culture.

I am quite libertarian on the issue, however I would stipulate that I consider second hand smoking to be a form of assault should the other person not want to be exposed to such a thing and the property owner not having designated it as an area where smoking can occur

Weed smoke is practically harmless to the user, and for someone subjected to second hand smoke there would be zero health risks, no real chance of catching a "contact-buzz," and if anything it might be helpful due to inhalation of the various terpenoids. But even those would most likely be in amounts too small to cause anything.
So really the only thing is the smell.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Ahh I see, I thought it was closer to tobacco in the second hand smoking department; my mistake.

 

[nnmartin]

Probably time to leave this beastly subject be:llama:

 

[McBell]

[youtube]HbPDKHXWlLQ[/youtube]
THE NEW LLAMA SONG !!!!! - YouTube

 

[Tiberius]

Probably time to leave this beastly subject be:llama:

Giving up?

 

[nnmartin]

not necessarily, but this thread and the incest one have now become nearly identical.

It's virtually run out of steam here unless someone can think of a new angle........

 

[Tiberius]

It seems that you are the one that has run out of steam. You don't seem to be able to show that there is any objective reason for banning either of these things.

 

[nnmartin]

here's a few diseases for you to check out.

Zimbabwean Man and His Intimate Love Affair With A Donkey: What Exactly is Bestiality? - International Business Times

for those that don't want to check the link.

National Agricultural Safety Database (NASD) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) listed some infection caused by bestiality or better known as the zoonoses. It includes Brucellosis, Echinococcosis, Salmonella, and Toxocariasis or dog roundworm. Aside from that, bestialitioners have also higher risks of having leptospirosis, and Q Fever.

Note the part about HIV as well.

In fact, HIV was originated from organisms transmitted when a woman allegedly had sex with a primate (monkey) in Africa. Having sex with animals can give you different microorganisms – bacteria and deadly viruses!

Yes, you could catch this off an animal - a different strain even that may have seriously harmful effects on the human population regarding drug resistance etc..

 

[Tiberius]

Okay then. Let's have a look at those diseases...

Brucellosis. transmission throuigh sexual contact is rare. It is more likely to occur through ingestion of unsterilised milk or meat.

Echinococcosis is a parasitic disease caused by the alrval stages of a tapeworm and infection occurs via ingestion of the eggs, typical through eating infected organs.

Salmonella can be contracted from the excretions of infected animals, so unless the person involved in playing with the animal's feces, I doubt that the bacteria would easily be transferable through sex. It's more likely to be contracted through poor preparation of food. In the US alone, 142 people each year are infected with it from eating infected chicken eggs.

Toxocariasis is caused by eating contaminated food. Not really a sexually transmitted thing.

Once again, Martin, you have failed to show a significant risk of illness from bestiality. Every single example mentioned can occur in humans, but it is commonly caused by many other things, and not through sex. Yes, bestiality does present the risk of getting an infection, but so does having sex with a human partner. I do not see how you can ban one activity because of the risk of infection, and yet be perfectly fine with an almost identical activity that carries much the same risks.

 

[riley2112]

Okay then. Let's have a look at those diseases...

Brucellosis. transmission throuigh sexual contact is rare. It is more likely to occur through ingestion of unsterilised milk or meat.

Echinococcosis is a parasitic disease caused by the alrval stages of a tapeworm and infection occurs via ingestion of the eggs, typical through eating infected organs.

Salmonella can be contracted from the excretions of infected animals, so unless the person involved in playing with the animal's feces, I doubt that the bacteria would easily be transferable through sex. It's more likely to be contracted through poor preparation of food. In the US alone, 142 people each year are infected with it from eating infected chicken eggs.

Toxocariasis is caused by eating contaminated food. Not really a sexually transmitted thing.

Once again, Martin, you have failed to show a significant risk of illness from bestiality. Every single example mentioned can occur in humans, but it is commonly caused by many other things, and not through sex. Yes, bestiality does present the risk of getting an infection, but so does having sex with a human partner. I do not see how you can ban one activity because of the risk of infection, and yet be perfectly fine with an almost identical activity that carries much the same risks.

I guess it is too late to just go back to icky, huh?