Should zoosexuality be legal? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:55:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should zoosexuality be legal? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: .
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 160

Author Topic: Should zoosexuality be legal?  (Read 36458 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


« on: March 26, 2010, 04:31:55 AM »

No, you can't have sex with a living thing you can't get consent from.

     Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you eat animal meat as part of your diet. Clearly that would indicate that you do not think they are subject to the non-aggression axiom. If aggression against animals is not wrong & killing them for food is permissible, then why would sexual activity with animals be wrong?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2010, 02:17:59 PM »

Killing them for food is a necessary evil.  Fucking them for fun isn't.

I'm not putting it up there with arson or pouring your used motor oil into the creek, but it's still wrong and shouldn't be legal.

     How is killing them for food a necessary evil? People are more than capable of surviving without eating animal meat. That's what vegetarians do, after all.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2010, 11:32:14 PM »
« Edited: March 26, 2010, 11:42:07 PM by SE Legislator PiT »

Killing them for food is a necessary evil.  Fucking them for fun isn't.

I'm not putting it up there with arson or pouring your used motor oil into the creek, but it's still wrong and shouldn't be legal.

     How is killing them for food a necessary evil? People are more than capable of surviving without eating animal meat. That's what vegetarians do, after all.
I'm (like all humans) an omnivore.  Some humans go against nature and get by without eating meat, that doesn't mean we all should.  Until we can make meat in a factory (that will be a great day, better tasting, better for you and no animals need to die), animals will need to die.

So basically, we'll have to agree to disagree.  Like I said, it's not THAT big of a deal.  We are just talking about animals here.

     If they really have rights that needed to be respected, I'd think that consideration would override the consideration that it is part of our nature to eat animal meat. We don't allow kleptomaniacs to steal without consequences just because stealing is part of their nature.

     Anyway, I am fine with agreeing to disagree. It's not really a big deal.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2011, 11:54:43 PM »

No, you can't have sex with a living thing you can't get consent from.

     Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you eat animal meat as part of your diet. Clearly that would indicate that you do not think they are subject to the non-aggression axiom. If aggression against animals is not wrong & killing them for food is permissible, then why would sexual activity with animals be wrong?

Would you rather be killed then eaten or ph-cked in the @$$ then killed and eaten.  Obviously the being ph-cked in the @$$ thing adds a whole other dimension to the scenario.

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2011, 04:55:31 PM »


     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.


     It is a concern in regards to myself & other humans. To anthropomorphize does not extend my concern beyond those bounds. Earlier in this topic I made the argument against extending legal protections to animals.

     I am not advocating any alternative lifestyle, & I would prefer to not be mischaracterized in such a fashion. Rather, I am arguing against its illegality. Besides, lack of necessity is always the weakest argument against legalization, because many things are non-necessary & still legal. I suppose there is a point to make that proscription becomes an entertainable hypothesis in the case of non-necessity, but the idea that proscription being entertainable means that it should be entertained is a rather large leap. Movies are non-essential to our health, yet hardly anyone would advocate banning them.

     Even if we were to assume that it was ethically sound for the government to concern itself with any random aspect of people's lives, it is hardly worth the resources to punish all perpetrators of all things that are dictated crimes. In the grand scheme of things, I regard dog-****ing as being a rather minor issue, at least when compared to crimes perpetrated against humans.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2011, 05:24:18 PM »


     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.


     It is a concern in regards to myself & other humans. To anthropomorphize does not extend my concern beyond those bounds. Earlier in this topic I made the argument against extending legal protections to animals.

     I am not advocating any alternative lifestyle, & I would prefer to not be mischaracterized in such a fashion. Rather, I am arguing against its illegality. Besides, lack of necessity is always the weakest argument against legalization, because many things are non-necessary & still legal. I suppose there is a point to make that proscription becomes an entertainable hypothesis in the case of non-necessity, but the idea that proscription being entertainable means that it should be entertained is a rather large leap. Movies are non-essential to our health, yet hardly anyone would advocate banning them.

     Even if we were to assume that it was ethically sound for the government to concern itself with any random aspect of people's lives, it is hardly worth the resources to punish all perpetrators of all things that are dictated crimes. In the grand scheme of things, I regard dog-****ing as being a rather minor issue, at least when compared to crimes perpetrated against humans.

Well you've called this lifestyle an "issue" and a "concern."  Movies are indeed for the most part nonessential.   But they are not an "issue" or "concern" and therefor not in the same category as this lifestyle.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you should get a life sentence for doing it.  A fine, probation, or brief incarceration at a minimum security facility might be enough to do the job common sense clearly didn't do for these people.  And you can escalate it.  Maybe a fine and the issue is permanently dropped from their record if they don't re-offend during the next 3yrs.  If they repeat maybe a fine and probation.  Something like that.

The other thing is the law can me enforced if the police stumble across it or you report your neighbor, but there shouldn't be millions of dollars in police resources spent chasing people all over the place.

     Some cinematic content is a concern, though. Perhaps video games, particularly violent ones, would be a better example.

     While I am reticent to enshrine any such notion as animal rights in the law, making it a minor offense would be an acceptable compromise to me. Sort of like how marijuana possession is the lowest priority offense in San Francisco.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 14 queries.