scriver, by your definitions no country is progressive, making 'progressive' a useless word...
One thing that I noticed: We all seem to take for granted that zoophilia hurts the animal. Is that necessarily the case?
...No. A "progressive" country is what progressives want to progress towards. It is the very reason it is called "progressivism".
And yes, it is very often the case, sometimes depending on the animal in question, but mostly it leaves damage. I remember that before Sweden made bestiality a crime (which was really, really recently, speaking of whether our countries are progressive or not), veterinarians complained about having to treat such obvious cases of animals having been hurt by humans fucking them and then not really having any way to stop it.
@Scriver: Can we get an example of a progressive country. Because the goalposts are rapidly accelerating now, and soon there might be no countries left.
There has been no moving of goalposts. Whether a country is "progressive" or not is not a matter of all or nothing - it can be progressive in some matters but not in others. That is basic logic and understanding. I did say "is not a progressive country", but the context of this whole discussion has been bestiality and animal rights. It shouldn't really need clarification that I mean "is not a progressive country in matters of animal rights", yet I added that part anyway in my last post to make it even clearer.
Scriver, I'm with you on ritual slaughter being bad, but we all know what you really mean by "progressive country". You're describing Swedish law almost verbatim.
Sweden, while having a lot of issues in other matters, does have one of the world's most progressive animal rights laws, yes. But it is certainly not perfect and there is definitely a lot of changes that should be made. The fact that bestiality was just criminalized a few years ago is very relevant in that matter.
But a progressive country also respects and protects the religious and cultural traditions of its minorities, does it not? Banning kosher/halal slaughter could be seen as religious persecution.
It can be seen that way. But part of progress is leaving harmful, immoral, or outdated traditions behind. "It's my religion/tradition!" is irrelevant when you want to cause harm and pain to animals. Their suffering outweighs whatever validation people might get from having followed ancient, thoughtless traditions.
Hunting, in any country that is progressive in regards to animal rights, require the hunter to at least aim for the head or to make a lethal shot.
So, uh. You're saying it wouldn't be violent murder if you killed a human with a head or otherwise lethal shot? Just to, like. Make sure I'm reading that right?
You know this isn't true and are acting intentionally dense.