Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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's good to allow for religious freedom, so long as it does not mean making exceptions to secular law for it. You can't just be permitted to do whatever you want because your religion tells you to. That way madness lies.

[10ebbor10]

Technically, it's no exception under US law.

[scriver]

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.

[Frumple]

*scratches head* Then what were you saying, scriv? You seemed to be saying that a clean kill somehow changes the nature of the act, or that violent murder necessitates... I'unno, torture or mutilation? Clarify?

[10ebbor10]

*scratches head* Then what were you saying, scriv? You seemed to be saying that a clean kill somehow changes the nature of the act, or that violent murder necessitates... I'unno, torture or mutilation? Clarify?

He's saying that there's a significant difference in value between humans and animals. In fact, both legally and morally*, you can't murder an animal. You can kill it, you can cause it nessecairy harm, but you can't murder it.

It's a point I'm pretty sure you should get, but I have the feeling you're actively trying to ignore.

*For a majority of the population

Edit: I'm not saying the above is what it should be, but in the light of this discussion it's a fact, not something that's part of what should be discussed.

[Frumple]

Nah, I'm aware that folks hold that stance.

Point I'd make, and point that bugs me, is that it's inconsistent. People are willing to allow folks to violently kill an animal -- and barely blink at it -- but balk at acts that involve considerably less harm. It's a pretty direct equivalent to saying that murder is okay, but sex isn't.

Now, you can say that the harm the sex can cause isn't acceptable -- and I'd definitely agree -- but if that degree of harm isn't acceptable then greater degrees are also unacceptable, yes? If you're trying to be consistent about it, anyway.

T'me, what Scriv's saying is that a clean kill -- somehow -- reduces the harm done to the animal to such a degree that it's less harm than is done by intercourse, and because of that (that it's under some threshold of harm), it's acceptable. I could definitely be misinterpreting -- and if so, no, it's not willful -- which is why I asked for clarification.

[10ebbor10]

Well, it's all about the suffering, I suppose. A bullet through the head kills fairly instantly, I suppose. Additionally, I think it technically qualifies for consumption.

Besides, I don't know about the USA or actually any other country, but I believe that most hunting in Belgium is used as population control, hence having a purpose, which sexual intercourse with an animal technically doesn't.

[GlyphGryph]

It's okay to have sex with the animal if you kill it first and eat it after, though, right?

[10ebbor10]

I'm pretty sure that violates Food safety laws somewhere.

[Xantalos]

As a person who just came into the thread, wat.

[Frumple]

... don't food safety laws only apply if you're selling the food in question to someone else?

[GlyphGryph]

Pretty much.

Also I guess it would be okay if it was alive during but unconscious by this logic? (and then killed after)

Right?

[10ebbor10]

Pretty much.

Also I guess it would be okay if it was alive during but unconscious by this logic? (and then killed after)

Right?

Nope. Still abuse. After all it didn't give consent and stuff.

But yeah, the law's a mess.

[kaijyuu]

Bow and arrow hunting (and much of gun hunting, as I recall) is particularly bad since the way you kill larger animals is to wound them, follow them, and wait for them to collapse and die from blood loss. Pretty gruesome death.


Most of the double standard comes from the "eww gross" crowd. A slightly more reasonable argument is population control and food having better justification for harming the animal (and the latter only makes sense if hunting is for some reason economical due to other food scarcity or something; arguing it's not okay to hurt an animal for pleasure one way but not another is silly).

[Xantalos]

Uh.
Not sure if this is being addressed, but we're assuming the relations are male human/female animal, are we not?
Because they go both ways.