Print

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

[kaijyuu]

Yup. They do.

Still doesn't count as consent, if that's why you're bringing it up.

[GlyphGryph]

But why does consent matter?

Esp. in regards to an animal that's about to be killed without it's consent anyway.

[miauw62]

You know, I feel kinda sad saying other stupid things.

Me: Why is iOS better than Android?
Friend: Because Apple made it.

Ignoring the fact that most of the "new" features of iOS7 are basically stolen (Couldn't find a better word) from various Android versions. (Not sure how to call the various versions manufacturers use.)

[Descan]

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.

Some countries (mostly Commonwealth. Canada, I think Britain, Australia too) allow Sikhs and other turban wearers to wear a turban instead of a bicycle helmet.

[Dutchling]

That doesn't sound safe to me.

[Xantalos]

That doesn't sound safe to me.

It isn't. That's the stupid.

[Xantalos]

Depends on how thick it is.

I mean, if they wore a so-thick-you-cannot-stay-balanced one, it'd be safe. Excluding the fact you'd fall over all the time.

Inb4 turban afro

[Frumple]

Odd. Y'all seem to be implying there's laws requiring people to wear bicycle helmets...

... checking, it looks like the current law where I'm at is that's true only for people under 16. Silly USA.

[Descan]

Yeah, it's legally required in Not-America.

Also known as "Sanity Land".

Anyway, no, they did tests and the average turban does not have the protective power of a helmet to absorb the shock of a head injury.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't see much reason to make adults wear helmets. They know the risks enough to choose whether or not to take the chance.

[smirk]

Actually, I tend to object to laws like that, that're concerned purely with personal safety. Like seatbelts. If it affects no one else but yourself, why not just leave it as personal choice? Not wearing a helmet is stupid, yes. But my lack of brain bucket isn't threatening anyone else.

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't see much reason to make adults wear helmets. They know the risks enough to choose whether or not to take the chance.

If society is directly or indirectly footing the healthcare bills and disability pensions, I think there's a good case to be made in favor of the law. Same with seatbelts.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't see much reason to make adults wear helmets. They know the risks enough to choose whether or not to take the chance.

If society is directly or indirectly footing the healthcare bills and disability pensions, I think there's a good case to be made in favor of the law. Same with seatbelts.

The problem with that is that it leads to either hypocrisy or oppressive laws. If you accept the argument that the government can prevent informed adults from doing things detrimental to their health due to healthcare costs, then what's the limit? Why are helmets and seatbelts required, but cigarettes and unhealthy food legal? The latter are far more likely to harm and kill you than neglecting the former. Most people are never involved in an auto accident, but most people are overweight. And since making it illegal won't actually stop it, how badly do you have to have treated yourself before you can be kicked out of the system and left to your own fate? Why should we as a society curtail your personal freedoms in the name of money?

[10ebbor10]

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

[Flying Dice]

But why does consent matter?

Esp. in regards to an animal that's about to be killed without it's consent anyway.

In this case, when we're dealing with animals that display clear signs of near-human intelligence: whales, dolphins, apes, octopi, etc. There's a pretty big difference between animals that could conceivably understand what's happening on some level and animals that are more or less mindless instinct-driven grazers. This covers roughly the same category that pretty much all leftists want to ban the killing of outright, for various reasons.

In other words, there's a difference between killing an animal that could reasonably be construed as being of what we think of as sapience and one that isn't, and there is therefore also a difference between fucking an animal in the former category as opposed to one in the latter. The former will always be unacceptable because you're killing/raping what might be a person, the latter is acceptable when harm is minimized and the benefits of doing so exceed the cost of causing harm.

From there, it's fairly obvious. Killing dumb animals for food in a humane manner is acceptable because the benefits (easy, plentiful source of protein &c), while fucking them is not (you don't need to cause harm to get an orgasm). Mind, I'm not saying that zoophiles are morally wrong simply for having their predilection, but when acting on it causes harm it become an issue. S'not any different from any other type or subtype of sexuality: it's all well and good unless you're harming another being against their consent.

Cigarettes are not going to last long, not in Europe anyway. And there has been talk about reducing healthcare refunds for obese people/

Ah, now I've having fond dreams about what it would take for that in the States. It's silly to treat one unhealthy habit as if it were completely uncontrollable while regulating others heavily.


Unrelated: Saw a username today (elsewhere) that read thus:

TeaPartyisTaliban