Warning, question regarding Zoophilia

[Red Puppy]

Since there's obviously more sexual freedom in a socialist state, I am curious. What is everyone's stand on Zoophilia. Would it be accepted in a post-revolution world?

Please, I know this seems like flame bait, but you may leave any of your flames at the door on this thread. Thanks.

[spartan]

The fact remains that you cant tell whether the animal is truely enjoying the experience or not or just being submissive to its owner so, though i am against animal right nutters, i personally find this practice, like paedophilia, unacceptable and potentially harmful to animals and to the rest of society.

The fact is, like with the raising of children, the owning of animals requires a duty of care by the owner which should never develop into exploitation of those who rely on your care.

[counterblast]

Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.

[spartan]

Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Exactly!

How is the animal going to give consent when they cant even convey emotions through speech? (Which is the basic required to give consent IMO).

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:37 am
The fact remains that you cant tell whether the animal is truely enjoying the experience or not or just being submissive to its owner so, though i am against animal right nutters, i personally find this practice, like paedophilia, unacceptable and potentially harmful to animals and to the rest of society.

The fact is, like with the raising of children, the owning of animals requires a duty of care by the owner which should never develop into exploitation of those who rely on your care.
So do you object to zoophilia on the basis that it "disgusts you" or because you feel that animals are more than just tools to advance human desires?

If it is the latter, your arguement isn't consistent. You blast "animal right nutters" and yet you take stance with them because you feel that an animal's well-being outweighs a human's enjoyment.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Nor can they object to being slaughtered; that doesn't stop me eating meat.

The fact of the matter is that animals do not have rights in the sense that humans have them. There is nothing wrong with Zoophilia. Personally I wouldn't go for it myself, but that is never a reason to oppose the legailty of something.

[Red Puppy]

These are some good responses, I am glad there was no vulgarity. I am no avid animal rights activist, but I believe strongly in the humane treatment of animals. While I do not wholeheartedly support zoophilia, I believe that you truly can't say the animals are enjoying it or not; however, I agree with the common arguments most zoophiles raise, and that is the following: If the animal does not enjoy what is happening, it will resist and if the person persists, then it is rape.

As long as the animal is not being harmed, drugged, or abused, then what happens in your home is your business.

That's my take on the subject.

I saw that there were all sorts of sexual discussions, and since this is one that has existed for as long as pedophilia, it deserved a thread too.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

There actually have been a few threads on the topic, but until now they were mostly started by the same mentally disturbed troll, and trashed accordingly. It is good to have a proper, civilized debate on the topic as it is something on which many leftists still have a caveman stance; it is "icky", therefore it is wrong.

As regards whether or not an animal is enjoying it: I agree to an extent, that extent being that it should be unlawful for a person to engage in sexual actions with an animal if those actions cause severe pain to the animal. There are laws against the physical abuse and torture of animals, and rightly so. However, this should not extend to the act being "not enjoyable" for the animal; I'm willing to bet most animals don't enjoy being locked up, killed and eventually devoured either. Your dog probably doesn't enjoy being slapped on the nose everytime he pisses somewhere he shouldn't. I think the only law should be against causing severe pain to an animal, and that would be fairly easy to determine (like the difference between petting and hitting a dog).

[counterblast]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+December 11, 2007 01:56 am--> (RedStar1916 @ December 11, 2007 01:56 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Nor can they object to being slaughtered; that doesn't stop me eating meat.

The fact of the matter is that rights do not have rights in the sense that humans have them. There is nothing wrong with Zoophilia. Personally I wouldn't go for it myself, but that is never a reason to oppose the legailty of something. [/b]
A fundmental difference of opinion. I don't eat meat nor do I support zoophilia.

However, spartan (presumably, by his statement) eats meat, yet opposes sex with animals because of the implications of non-consent. I simply can't understand the logic behind that.


EDIT: *fundamental

[Red Puppy]

A fundmental difference of opinion. I don't eat meat nor do I support zoophilia.


I do have a interest in animal rights and protecting them and preventing abuse and such, but I still eat meat. There's nutrition there that's hard to replace. In fact, I support eating meat, but I oppose the abuse that comes before the animal is killed. (See PETA's videos on the beef factories.) Killing something for food is no new thing to nature, but it is not necessary to main and hurt them before hand.

I realize this probably comes off a little coarse and insulting, and I apologize in advance if you see it that way, comrade. Just my random 2 cents. And a little off topic...


It is good to have a proper, civilized debate on the topic as it is something on which many leftists still have a caveman stance; it is "icky", therefore it is wrong.

Back on topic, I agree wholeheartedly with you, Red Star. This kind of thinking and reasoning has held back society to a small extent, I believe.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Well said.

[Red Puppy]

It is good to have a proper, civilized debate on the topic as it is something on which many leftists still have a caveman stance; it is "icky", therefore it is wrong.

As for Petey, you've added your own connotations to this discussion and your post not only strays from the subject at hand, but is more or less trolling. Unfortunately for you, it is up for discussion, and you are participating in it! Great job. No one is forcing anything on anyone, I don't participate in anything zoophilia related; however, that doesn't make it wrong to discuss it. Because if you hide away a taboo, it just disappears, right?

Your stupidity and childish attitude disgusts me, I have a feeling it would, no matter the subject.

Furthermore, you apparently can't read, either.

I know this seems like flame bait, but you may leave any of your flames at the door on this thread. Thanks.

[Lynx]

Zoophilia would probably be banned. It is offensive to too many people.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:11 pm
Zoophilia would probably be banned. It is offensive to too many people.
Banned by who? How is that going to be enforced? House-to-house checks every night?

Besides, what is 'offensive' sexual behaviour in the current epoch will not always remain so... indeed sex before marriage was once commonly regarded as 'offensive' (and still is in some places - punishable by imprisonment), ditto for same-sex relationships. The point is sexual norms change over time, so i think its reasonable to suggest that the general view of zoophilia may also change - and certainly that it's foolish to make definitive claims about the sexuality of a future society.

Regardless, i certainly hope the response to zoophilia become more mature and less moralistic.

Further to that point, if people troll in this thread their posts will be removed. Immature comments like 'YUCK! that's disgusting you freak!' etc. are not welcome and contribute nothing to the discussion. If you do not agree with zoophilia than please make your points in a mature, rational and reasoned manner - thank you.

[Red Puppy]

Regardless, i certainly hope the response to zoophilia become more mature and less moralistic.

I agree. And thank you for taking care of the trolls. :)

[Vanguard1917]

Zoophilia is pretty bizarre stuff. It's probably wise to have a sense of humour with oddballs like 'zoophiles'.

You also need a highly developed sense of humour when reading comments like this:


Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Animals can take initiative to sexual actions with human beings. The most common way of sexual interaction between human and dog is when the dog starts to lick a woman in the sexual organs and then tries to mount her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJVNRJIoriQ

Some animals have zoophilic tendencies as well.

[w0lf]

I don't think there will be enough zoophiles for a law to be enforced against it.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:32 pm
I don't think there will be enough zoophiles for a law to be enforced against it.
During the 17th century in Sweden, it was the most usual offense to get executed for.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 11, 2007 01:31 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ December 11, 2007 01:31 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 03:11 pm
Zoophilia would probably be banned. It is offensive to too many people.
Banned by who? How is that going to be enforced? House-to-house checks every night? [/b]
It will be banned by society, in the same way pedophilia is banned. And most people will conform, just as most people conform today. When I think of future society, I limit my thoughts to what may evolve during my lifetime. I'm not immortal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality

Should we allow something before we research it? Or afterwards?
At some point ethics places a limit on what is acceptable to a majority in society. Those who disagree can go underground, if it is worth their effort.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

At some point ethics places a limit on what is acceptable to a majority in society. Those who disagree can go underground, if it is worth their effort.
Not ethics; majority ethics. Saying that something is wrong because the majority of people at the time believe it to be wrong is deriving an "ought" from an "is" and is completely repugnant to the concept of justice. Why do we even have a system of law? Wouldn't mob rule be better? Like in Texas in the 1930s?


As for counterblast, would you support imprisoning people who eat meat?

[LOTFW]

As animals can not consent to anything, the consent argument can’t be used pro or con. (I suppose this will kick me out of the Star Trek IV club, but I’m filled with the human arrogance that does not place animals on the same level of importance as humans. One of my faults I suppose.)

I never understood using animals for sex. Not my fetish. (And I got a bunch of them.) I suppose if I thought about it, it would be disgusting.

I led a symposium on the topic of consent two years ago, and someone brought this issue up. Just for kicks I suppose. (I teach high school students. This was a district-wide event, open to students planning on studying law.) After the students discussed it for a while, both pro and con, I offered the following hypo. Maybe some of you here can solve this one. (Not that there is an actual solution.):

You’re at home, and there’s no one else around. You’re naked watching videos or listening to music. Your cat walks up to you, and you take some catnip, put it on your hand, and the cat begins to lick your hand. Then after a while, you put catnip on another part of your body, let’s say your sexual organ. The cat begins to like you there.

Can you write a rule to prevent such conduct? Should society attempt to police such conduct?

No consensus was found that afternoon.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 11, 2007 05:31 am
Further to that point, if people troll in this thread their posts will be removed. Immature comments like 'YUCK! that's disgusting you freak!' etc. are not welcome and contribute nothing to the discussion. If you do not agree with zoophilia than please make your points in a mature, rational and reasoned manner - thank you.
Silencing people? Very anarchistic of you. :P

Now back to the subject at hand. As humyn beings it would be impossible to know not only if the animal is wanting it but more so; it would be impossible to know how it effects the animal emotionaly. On that note, I come to the conclusion that there is basis for an objection to it. To make a comparisson between consenting humyn relationships (reguardless of sexual prefference) to having sex with an animal who can't make an objection is just what anti-homosexual groups want you to do. That gives them a basis to marginalize the gay rights movement.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:26 pm
Not ethics; majority ethics. Saying that something is wrong because the majority of people at the time believe it to be wrong is deriving an "ought" from an "is" and is completely repugnant to the concept of justice. Why do we even have a system of law? Wouldn't mob rule be better? Like in Texas in the 1930s?
The law represents current societal norms. The law can change as society changes.

You may not like the tyranny of the majority, but I don't see pedophiles being brought to justice in great numbers. The internet has given them the ability to communicate and carry on with impunity. Would it be any different for Zoophiles?

If you want my guess as to the future of human sexuality, it will involve life size sex dolls (eg. RealDolls). Eventually, with advances in robotics and AI, people will be having sex with robots. Who knows, there may even be some non-human models available.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:52 pm

You’re at home, and there’s no one else around. You’re naked watching videos or listening to music. Your cat walks up to you, and you take some catnip, put it on your hand, and the cat begins to lick your hand. Then after a while, you put catnip on another part of your body, let’s say your sexual organ. The cat begins to like you there.

Can you write a rule to prevent such conduct?
A law can be passed, which may or may not deter or prevent.

Should society attempt to police such conduct?
In this case, not without a search warrant.
Policing of laws is done on the basis of priority, resources, and political interference.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:11 am
Zoophilia would probably be banned. It is offensive to too many people.
do you honestly think that offense is a reasonable criteria for making soemthing illegal

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:26 pm

At some point ethics places a limit on what is acceptable to a majority in society. Those who disagree can go underground, if it is worth their effort.
Not ethics; majority ethics. Saying that something is wrong because the majority of people at the time believe it to be wrong is deriving an "ought" from an "is" and is completely repugnant to the concept of justice. Why do we even have a system of law? Wouldn't mob rule be better? Like in Texas in the 1930s?


As for counterblast, would you support imprisoning people who eat meat?
Absolutely not.

Prison only deters crime. It rarely, if ever, changes "criminal" behavior.

[Lynx]

do you honestly think that offense is a reasonable criteria for making soemthing illegal
It depends on the reasons for being offended.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 11, 2007 05:21 pm--> (Serpent @ December 11, 2007 05:21 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Animals can take initiative to sexual actions with human beings. The most common way of sexual interaction between human and dog is when the dog starts to lick a woman in the sexual organs and then tries to mount her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJVNRJIoriQ

Some animals have zoophilic tendencies as well. [/b]
That isn't relevant.

If you return sexual contact with an animal you have no way of knowing whether you're taking it "too far".

When two human partners have sex, consent implies both (or all) partners are willing throughout intercourse, regardless of who initiated it. If at any time, the person who initiated intercourse asks to "stop"; the other partner must abide. If he/she doesn't, it still constitutes rape.

With animals, this is not possible.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 12, 2007 02:40 am--> (counterblast @ December 12, 2007 02:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Animals can take initiative to sexual actions with human beings. The most common way of sexual interaction between human and dog is when the dog starts to lick a woman in the sexual organs and then tries to mount her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJVNRJIoriQ

Some animals have zoophilic tendencies as well.
That isn't relevant.

If you return sexual contact with an animal you have no way of knowing whether you're taking it "too far".

When two human partners have sex, consent implies both (or all) partners are willing throughout intercourse, regardless of who initiated it. If at any time, the person who initiated intercourse asks to "stop"; the other partner must abide. If he/she doesn't, it still constitutes rape.

With animals, this is not possible. [/b]
Well said counterblast

[apathy maybe]

Meh, this is a stupid topic. I wouldn't object if all future zoophilia topics get closed. Why? Because there are only a few basic positions, which get repeated, around and around.


First there is the, animals have no rights, therefore it doesn't matter what we do to them (including eat them, or have sex with them).

Then there is the, we shouldn't be cruel to animals, sex is potentially cruel, therefore we shouldn't do it. (But animals still don't have "rights".)

We have the animals can't give consent crew, which does give (some) rights to animals, including the right not to be "raped".

We have the animals can give consent crew, can initiate sex, and if it goes too far, can respond by pulling away or whatever.

There are the people who haven't thought about the issue beyond a simple "that's yuk, therefore we should ban it" (or "lots of people think it is yuk, therefore we should ban it").

And I'm sure there are a few more basic variations on these different themes.

And around we go again. Animals can't give consent. Animals can give consent. It doesn't matter because animals don't have rights anyway! SEX WITH ANIMALS IS YUKKY AND ANYONE WHO DOES IT IS A FREAK!!1!11!one!!11!one.

So, I would suggest closing this thread, and all future threads, with a link to the multiple threads on the topic already. (It would also stop trolls ...)

[Lynx]

I'm new to this topic and Red Puppy is new to this forum, so our perspectives may be different to yours.
Reviving old threads is discouraged, you get accused of necromancy.
Ah well, I guess the future has arrived: ban discussion of zoophilia cos the old timers are fed up with it.
What else could be banned? Dialectics?

[apathy maybe]

Yes, ban discussion of zoophlia (and dialectics). But not because I'm sick of it, but because it attracts trolls, and is an issue that has a very limited number of discussion points. Discussions go around and around.

So, unless you can come up with something that hasn't been addressed two or three or more times before, then don't bother.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by petey+December 12, 2007 10:45 am--> (petey @ December 12, 2007 10:45 am)
bleeding gums [email protected] 11, 2007 05:31 am
Further to that point, if people troll in this thread their posts will be removed. Immature comments like 'YUCK! that's disgusting you freak!' etc. are not welcome and contribute nothing to the discussion. If you do not agree with zoophilia than please make your points in a mature, rational and reasoned manner - thank you.
Silencing people? Very anarchistic of you. :P [/b]
Suggesting that people respond in a mature, intelligent and reasoned way to this topic is not 'silencing' anyone but trolls and other idiots.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 06:02 am
Yes, ban discussion of zoophlia (and dialectics). But not because I'm sick of it, but because it attracts trolls, and is an issue that has a very limited number of discussion points. Discussions go around and around.

So, unless you can come up with something that hasn't been addressed two or three or more times before, then don't bother.
Couldn't the same be said about most (if not, all) issues discussed on this forum?

Abortion, as an example.

You have those who believe a fetus is a child and shouldn't be aborted for any reason.

You have those who believe a fetus is a child and shouldn't be aborted except in situations like rape or incest.

You have those who believe a fetus is a parasite and the mother should be allowed abortion up until a certain point.

You have those who believe a fetus is a parasite and the mother should be allowed abortion any time she wishes.



All debate on RevLeft is recurrent. It isn't limited to zoophilia.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 12, 2007 06:57 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ December 12, 2007 06:57 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:45 am

bleeding gums [email protected] 11, 2007 05:31 am
Further to that point, if people troll in this thread their posts will be removed. Immature comments like 'YUCK! that's disgusting you freak!' etc. are not welcome and contribute nothing to the discussion. If you do not agree with zoophilia than please make your points in a mature, rational and reasoned manner - thank you.
Silencing people? Very anarchistic of you. :P
Suggesting that people respond in a mature, intelligent and reasoned way to this topic is not 'silencing' anyone but trolls and other idiots. [/b]
You took that so seriously. In the words of David Rovics in his explanation of his song called I'm a Better Anarchist Than You "If I can't laugh at your revolution I don't want it."

Lighten up some. Being so uptight makes one look ridiculous. Learn to laugh. :P

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by petey+December 12, 2007 06:09 pm--> (petey @ December 12, 2007 06:09 pm)
Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 12, 2007 06:57 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:45 am

bleeding gums [email protected] 11, 2007 05:31 am
Further to that point, if people troll in this thread their posts will be removed. Immature comments like 'YUCK! that's disgusting you freak!' etc. are not welcome and contribute nothing to the discussion. If you do not agree with zoophilia than please make your points in a mature, rational and reasoned manner - thank you.
Silencing people? Very anarchistic of you. :P
Suggesting that people respond in a mature, intelligent and reasoned way to this topic is not 'silencing' anyone but trolls and other idiots.
You took that so seriously. In the words of David Rovics in his explanation of his song called I'm a Better Anarchist Than You "If I can't laugh at your revolution I don't want it."

Lighten up some. Being so uptight makes one look ridiculous. Learn to laugh. :P [/b]
I'm not uptight with my friends - no offense.

[Dimentio]

You could ask the people here.

http://www.beastforum.com/

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+December 12, 2007 01:20 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ December 12, 2007 01:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:09 pm

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 12, 2007 06:57 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:45 am

bleeding gums [email protected] 11, 2007 05:31 am
Further to that point, if people troll in this thread their posts will be removed. Immature comments like 'YUCK! that's disgusting you freak!' etc. are not welcome and contribute nothing to the discussion. If you do not agree with zoophilia than please make your points in a mature, rational and reasoned manner - thank you.
Silencing people? Very anarchistic of you. :P
Suggesting that people respond in a mature, intelligent and reasoned way to this topic is not 'silencing' anyone but trolls and other idiots.
You took that so seriously. In the words of David Rovics in his explanation of his song called I'm a Better Anarchist Than You "If I can't laugh at your revolution I don't want it."

Lighten up some. Being so uptight makes one look ridiculous. Learn to laugh. :P
I'm not uptight with my friends - no offense. [/b]
Way to push people away.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

The law represents current societal norms. The law can change as society changes.

That is *way* too simplistic a view of the law. It also causes major problems, like the definition of "current". Or the definition of "social" or "norms" for that matter. The fact of the matter is that, yes, the people can amend a Constitution by referendum and that their elected governments can introduce legislation, but all legislation must abide by the rules set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution is not amended so easily and lightly that anything that seems distasteful at any given time can be banned. Hence the existence of law as an academic and theoretical field.

The thing about constitutions is that their most important part in terms of law-making, their guarantee of human rights, tend to focus on protecting rather than restricting rights. Thus it is more likely that a referendum to enumerate a new right that is to be protected is going to be passed by parliament and put before the people, than a referendum to restrict or remove a right.

There are, as far as I know, only two actual crimes specified in the Irish Constitution. One is blasphemy (never enforced), the other I can't remember at the moment (though if you accept the majority judgement of R v R there is a third, namely the termination of pregnancy). It is highly unlikely that an amendment to the Constitution is ever going to be brought before the people expressly illegalizing zoophilia. Thus the matter will remain open to rational debate, quite contrary to what you seem to be suggesting.

[Marsella]

That is *way* too simplistic a view of the law. It also causes major problems, like the definition of "current". Or the definition of "social" or "norms" for that matter. The fact of the matter is that, yes, the people can amend a Constitution by referendum and that their elected governments can introduce legislation, but all legislation must abide by the rules set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution is not amended so easily and lightly that anything that seems distasteful at any given time can be banned. Hence the existence of law as an academic and theoretical field.

That might be correct if the interpretation of constitutions remained static.

It does not.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm

That is *way* too simplistic a view of the law. It also causes major problems, like the definition of "current". Or the definition of "social" or "norms" for that matter. The fact of the matter is that, yes, the people can amend a Constitution by referendum and that their elected governments can introduce legislation, but all legislation must abide by the rules set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution is not amended so easily and lightly that anything that seems distasteful at any given time can be banned. Hence the existence of law as an academic and theoretical field.

That might be correct if the interpretation of constitutions remained static.

It does not.
But the interpretation of the Constitution is not decided by majority vote.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 12, 2007 02:40 am--> (counterblast @ December 12, 2007 02:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Animals can take initiative to sexual actions with human beings. The most common way of sexual interaction between human and dog is when the dog starts to lick a woman in the sexual organs and then tries to mount her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJVNRJIoriQ

Some animals have zoophilic tendencies as well.
That isn't relevant.

If you return sexual contact with an animal you have no way of knowing whether you're taking it "too far".

When two human partners have sex, consent implies both (or all) partners are willing throughout intercourse, regardless of who initiated it. If at any time, the person who initiated intercourse asks to "stop"; the other partner must abide. If he/she doesn't, it still constitutes rape.

With animals, this is not possible. [/b]
Some human beings could never know if they take something too far or not. Some aspergians for example cannot interpret human body language and facial expressions and are therefore unable to understand what their sexual partners want or do not want to do.

All human beings are temporarily unable to make such decisions under heavy influence of drugs.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+December 13, 2007 02:58 am--> (RedStar1916 @ December 13, 2007 02:58 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 05:28 pm

That is *way* too simplistic a view of the law. It also causes major problems, like the definition of "current". Or the definition of "social" or "norms" for that matter. The fact of the matter is that, yes, the people can amend a Constitution by referendum and that their elected governments can introduce legislation, but all legislation must abide by the rules set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution is not amended so easily and lightly that anything that seems distasteful at any given time can be banned. Hence the existence of law as an academic and theoretical field.

That might be correct if the interpretation of constitutions remained static.

It does not.
But the interpretation of the Constitution is not decided by majority vote. [/b]
No. It is largely determined by the values and ideals of the ruling class.

The lower classes tend to agree.

Hence law is a representation of current norms. You cannot impose laws on unwilling subjects.

Edit: unless you have a very very repressive state system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by counterblast+December 12, 2007 02:40 am--> (counterblast @ December 12, 2007 02:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:21 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 12:41 am
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
Animals can take initiative to sexual actions with human beings. The most common way of sexual interaction between human and dog is when the dog starts to lick a woman in the sexual organs and then tries to mount her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJVNRJIoriQ

Some animals have zoophilic tendencies as well.
That isn't relevant.

If you return sexual contact with an animal you have no way of knowing whether you're taking it "too far". [/b]
Bullshit. Animals have no compunction about letting one know if one is doing something the animal doesn't like.

Now, animals can't "consent" in the same deeply informed way that humans, however they know what they like and what they don't. As long as no cruelty is involved, I do not see any problems in human-animal relationships.

We already use animals as a food source, for companionship and to make clothing, so what exactly is different about sexual gratification?

[LOTFW]

Part of these discussions that write of "what animals would want" are pretty silly.

My guess is that, if the animals could communicate to us in the detailed way we communicate with one another, they'd probably tell us to leave them the hell alone.

Maybe they'd make friendships with us; maybe they'd learn from us and vice-versa. But the main message they'd give us would probably be:

Don't eat us; don't make us do hard labor; we're not your transportation - take a bus!

Stuff like that.

PROBABLY along those same lines would be, "Don't fuck me, thank you very much." (I write "probably" as their may be an occasional interest in just that among some of them. But I amusingly degress...)

Because we're not going to stop eating them (and they're tasty!), and making them do burden-labor, and use them for pulling our carriages in Central Park; they're not going to be able to stop some of us from having sex with them (if you want to call it sex.)

Since they can't stop us, the only question is whether to use the state to stop people from doing so. If you're not going to use the mechanism of the state (whether current cappie police, or post-Rev People's Army) to stop them, all of this is moot.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No. It is largely determined by the values and ideals of the ruling class.

Not entirely true; unfortunately it is true that the courst will ultimately (though not invariably) decline to make decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution that may harm the ruling class or take power away from them, it does not necessarily follow that the courts will determine issues relating to the interpretation of the Constitution according to what the ruling class happens to believe at the time. As always this filters into their decision-making process but it is not the sole basis of their decision. Zoophilia is not an economic issue but a social one, thus there is nothing inherent in the legalization of zoophilia that would directly harm the ruling class. Of course this does not mean that the courts would necessarily support the legalization of zoophilia, but it does mean that the issue is open to discusion.


Hence law is a representation of current norms. You cannot impose laws on unwilling subjects.
Yes you can, quite easily. For example, the smoking ban or the criminalization of abortion. If laws could only be imposed on those who supported them then the law would become obsolete.

[Marsella]

Not entirely true; unfortunately it is true that the courst will ultimately (though not invariably) decline to make decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution that may harm the ruling class or take power away from them, it does not necessarily follow that the courts will determine issues relating to the interpretation of the Constitution according to what the ruling class happens to believe at the time.

Yet you forget whom appoints judges.

Needless to say, when courts do make a judgment which may be unfavorable to the capitalist class, it is quite a rare occasion.

One I can think of, is where a court enforced a defense of unconscionable conduct regarding a bank mortgage. Basically, it would require a greater onus on the banks to ensure that customers fully were aware of the contents of a transaction.

But really, this was a reflection of societies demand that a bank disclose all the material facts relevant to a mortgage.

Society, particularly the mode of production, determined the judgment, as economic security and full knowledge of transactions is demanded in a robust capitalist society.

All the seven judges did was proclaim it as law.


As always this filters into their decision-making process but it is not the sole basis of their decision.

What other factors apart from a material basis?


Zoophilia is not an economic issue but a social one, thus there is nothing inherent in the legalization of zoophilia that would directly harm the ruling class. Of course this does not mean that the courts would necessarily support the legalization of zoophilia, but it does mean that the issue is open to discusion.

Anything which has some sort of damaging effect to the nuclear family may well be discouraged. And I am sure you agree that the conception of the nuclear family is an economic concept.


Yes you can, quite easily. For example, the smoking ban or the criminalization of abortion. If laws could only be imposed on those who supported them then the law would become obsolete.

The difference being that those two subjects are contentious areas already.

Could you, for example, enforce a law which demanded that no shopping was to occur on weekdays?

Probably not. Most importantly it would never reach the stage of legislation because legislators are the representatives of the bourgeoisie class.

And laws may well be passed but not enforced or followed, because of wide-spread dissent against them.

A good example of a law which did not have popular acceptance and thus failed is the Prohibition in America.

A study of the law of Trusts too shows how the courts have acted parallel to economic actions and attempted to legitimize them.

[LOTFW]

Yes you can, quite easily. For example, the smoking ban or the criminalization of abortion. If laws could only be imposed on those who supported them then the law would become obsolete.

100% True.

In fact, the fact that it is a law, means that it is being imposed as a requirement. To those who argue that they can only be effected by a law if they so choose, be careful!!!

If you are such a person with such a belief, DON'T FIGHT FOR REVOLUTION!!!

If you claim to be living in a circumstance where you can follow what laws you choose, and ignore others you don't accept, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR REVOLUTION?!? You're already in the most revolutionary circumstance possible (more or less).

But back to the overall premise: If there's anyone out there who believes they can disobey any law they choose, DO SO IN AN OPEN MANNER, AND IN THE EYES OF AUTHORITY. Put your interests where your mouth is. If you believe the firecracker law doesn't apply to you, light one off in front of the police station, or the assistant principal of your high school. Show a police officer that joint you're carrying, or better yet, smoke it during your Biology class.


You cannot impose laws on unwilling subjects.

One of the dumbest comments I have yet to read here.

[Marsella]

100% True.

In fact, the fact that it is a law, means that it is being imposed as a requirement. To those who argue that they can only be effected by a law if they so choose, be careful!!!

If you are such a person with such a belief, DON'T FIGHT FOR REVOLUTION!!!

If you claim to be living in a circumstance where you can follow what laws you choose, and ignore others you don't accept, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR REVOLUTION?!? You're already in the most revolutionary circumstance possible (more or less).

But back to the overall premise: If there's anyone out there who believes they can disobey any law they choose, DO SO IN AN OPEN MANNER, AND IN THE EYES OF AUTHORITY. Put your interests where your mouth is. If you believe the firecracker law doesn't apply to you, light one off in front of the police station, or the assistant principal of your high school. Show a police officer that joint you're carrying, or better yet, smoke it during your Biology class.

Neither RedStar nor myself were arguing that we should disobey any laws, at least in this thread.

You have wasted several hundred words on an argument which did not exist.


One of the dumbest comments I have yet to read here.

Quite a compelling argument. <_<

It is quite a fundamental Marxist position that society makes laws, laws do not make society. And when examining laws you look at the motive behind them. That is the economic mode of production.

Laws are rarely passed in which are contrary to the ideals of the society in which they are passed. If indeed they are passed, then they are either wholly ignored or strongly attacked if their significance deserves that level.

edit by MM: Removed needless flames.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yet you forget whom appoints judges.
No I don&#39;t. But you forget that judges are expected to act fairly and impartially and that, while they don&#39;t always achieve this, they are not merely personal puppets of the executive branch of government.



Needless to say, when courts do make a judgment which may be unfavorable to the capitalist class, it is quite a rare occasion.
Largely irrelevant. Zoophilia is a social issue, the courts do not exist to enforce the social views and standards of any one class; they will protect the ruling class only economically, and even then they will sometimes strive to protect it from its own inhumanity by finding in favour of those outside the ruling class.



But really, this was a reflection of societies demand that a bank disclose all the material facts relevant to a mortgage.

Similarly, society today demands that the state does not intervene with people&#39;s private and sexual lives. This can be seen in the increasingly liberal interpretation of the Constitution regarding homosexuals and their rights. Yet they do not demand that homosexuals have the right to do whatever they want in the bedroom because they are homosexuals, but rather because they are human beings. And it is this value that will be picked up by the courts.



What other factors apart from a material basis?

Many judges subscribe to the natural rights doctrine and the human personality doctrine. Also, in common law systems precedent and the reasoning behind past judgements will be taken into account.



Anything which has some sort of damaging effect to the nuclear family may well be discouraged. And I am sure you agree that the conception of the nuclear family is an economic concept.

They may indeed be discouraged, that does not mean that they will be banned. Many judges have taken liberal stances on issues that may damage the nuclear family.



Could you, for example, enforce a law which demanded that no shopping was to occur on weekdays?

Probably not. Most importantly it would never reach the stage of legislation because legislators are the representatives of the bourgeoisie class.
Clearly, because that would destroy the economy, leading to mass unmployment and poverty. But most importantly there are no valid grounds on which to impose it; shopping on weekdays is not restricting people&#39;s rights.

But all this talk about imposing laws is completely irrelevant. All the laws mentioned are restricting people&#39;s rights; they are very different to laws defending people&#39;s rights. What are people going to do, show their dissent towards a law legalizing zoophilia by not having sex with animals?&#33; :o

[LOTFW]

Could you, for example, enforce a law which demanded that no shopping was to occur on weekdays?

In the United States, would violate the constitution.

Edit by MM: removed needless flaming in response to previous needless flaming.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:22 pm

100% True.

In fact, the fact that it is a law, means that it is being imposed as a requirement. To those who argue that they can only be effected by a law if they so choose, be careful&#33;&#33;&#33;

If you are such a person with such a belief, DON&#39;T FIGHT FOR REVOLUTION&#33;&#33;&#33;

If you claim to be living in a circumstance where you can follow what laws you choose, and ignore others you don&#39;t accept, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR REVOLUTION?&#33;? You&#39;re already in the most revolutionary circumstance possible (more or less).

But back to the overall premise: If there&#39;s anyone out there who believes they can disobey any law they choose, DO SO IN AN OPEN MANNER, AND IN THE EYES OF AUTHORITY. Put your interests where your mouth is. If you believe the firecracker law doesn&#39;t apply to you, light one off in front of the police station, or the assistant principal of your high school. Show a police officer that joint you&#39;re carrying, or better yet, smoke it during your Biology class.

Neither RedStar nor myself were arguing that we should disobey any laws, at least in this thread.

You have wasted several hundred words on an argument which did not exist.


One of the dumbest comments I have yet to read here.

Quite a compelling argument. <_<

It is quite a fundamental Marxist position that society makes laws, laws do not make society. And when examining laws you look at the motive behind them. That is the economic mode of production.

Laws are rarely passed in which are contrary to the ideals of the society in which they are passed. If indeed they are passed, then they are either wholly ignored or strongly attacked if their significance deserves that level.

edit by MM: Removed needless flames.
In the same time, should we really take the opposite position just to be against bourgeoisie societ?

[midnight marauder]

Again, please try to tone the flaming down in this thread. I understand that it&#39;s a very -- erm -- incendiary topic, but let&#39;s try to maintain the same level-headed discourse we&#39;ve held so far here.

There&#39;s no need to dedicate your posts to name calling and personal insults.

[LOTFW]

My point about those who claim they don&#39;t have to follow any laws they so choose was straight forward, and not necessarily arguing for anyone to disobey law, or at anything Martov wrote.

I am referring to ANYONE who makes such a claim, that they prove this is the case by doing the act before authority. That&#39;s all.

In my job, every now and then a freshman or sophomore (it&#39;s never a junior or older) announce that such and such law or school policy (which does not have the weight of law, but can be enforced at a school site) is whacked, and that they&#39;re not going to obey it. I tell them to violate it in front of authority, and after pressing them to do so, it causes them to rethink their conduct.

One of my purposes is to demonstrate how serious the concept to disobey is. It isn&#39;t easy. It&#39;s a tough road. This is very real stuff.

Midnight: Thanks for the control. I don&#39;t want to use such terms.
Martov: If you think I&#39;m a troll (I presume that means a cappie who&#39;s using pretense), just say so.

[Marsella]

No I don&#39;t. But you forget that judges are expected to act fairly and impartially and that, while they don&#39;t always achieve this, they are not merely personal puppets of the executive branch of government.

It matters not if they are personal puppets.

What matters is the social conditions in which they are brought up.

Just as we don&#39;t judge classes on an individual basis.


Largely irrelevant. Zoophilia is a social issue, the courts do not exist to enforce the social views and standards of any one class; they will protect the ruling class only economically, and even then they will sometimes strive to protect it from its own inhumanity by finding in favour of those outside the ruling class.

Err yes they do.

Law has consistently being the upholder of backwards social issues.

From the notion that a woman is a man&#39;s property, to stances on abortion, rape, homosexuality and so forth. How are they not social issues?

And besides, I don&#39;t think you can simply disconnect a social issue from its full implications.

I mean, there was a great fear amongst unions that females entering the workforce would cause wages to drop. Clearly that has social and economic implications to the bourgeoisie. It is not as cut and clear as you might think.

I would imagine the legality of Zoophilia to have numerous economic consequences.

The bourgeoisie class will simply weight them up and decide whether it is worth it.


Similarly, society today demands that the state does not intervene with people&#39;s private and sexual lives. This can be seen in the increasingly liberal interpretation of the Constitution regarding homosexuals and their rights. Yet they do not demand that homosexuals have the right to do whatever they want in the bedroom because they are homosexuals, but rather because they are human beings. And it is this value that will be picked up by the courts.

Yeah, I largely agree. What is the point?


Many judges subscribe to the natural rights doctrine and the human personality doctrine. Also, in common law systems precedent and the reasoning behind past judgements will be taken into account.

No offense mate, and do not take this personally, but that is laughable.

The natural rights doctrine is simply an &#39;argument&#39; put forth by judges to maintain that all are equal without any proof. It is an assertion, not any doctrine.

And I might add that those natural rights are constantly changing.

Women did not once belong to in the category.

Neither did blacks.

Homosexuals were not considered equal either.

So where do we now turn to if this doctrine really reveals the uselessness of it?

Could it be the economic system? That females improved their stance due to the fact that an expanded work force is desirable in capitalism?

As for precedents and such, that is only proof of a prior argument.

I am asking where do these arguments come from?&#33;


They may indeed be discouraged, that does not mean that they will be banned. Many judges have taken liberal stances on issues that may damage the nuclear family.

Well, I don&#39;t know the circumstances of Ireland. But I would imagine the stance towards marriage would be changed by parliament, similar to England?

Well in that case, parliament decides what a marriage is. Judges can not go against that, unless a higher authority says otherwise.


But all this talk about imposing laws is completely irrelevant. All the laws mentioned are restricting people&#39;s rights; they are very different to laws defending people&#39;s rights. What are people going to do, show their dissent towards a law legalizing zoophilia by not having sex with animals?&#33; ohmy.gif

That&#39;s a fair point, and I see the distinction.

But equally so, law is a reflection of societies norms.

But the absence of a law does not necessarily mean the absence of a societal norm.

Let&#39;s just say there was no law prohibiting zoophilia; parliament had more important things to do (raising their wages for example.)

Now, a man is caught fucking his cat.

You don&#39;t think he would bear any consequences in our current society?

Of course he would, from the stigma attached to it, the damage to his family name, to his employment prospects. Law just aims to make sure that punishment happens.


In the same time, should we really take the opposite position just to be against bourgeoisie societ?

The bourgeoisie has been a progressive force. Where they act progressively I support it. Where they do not, I do not support it. It is not a matter of simply &#39;they said it, therefore it must be wrong.&#39; We do need to analyze each issue separately.


In the United States, would violate the constitution.

Fortunately, neither of us are American, are we? <_<

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:49 am
My point about those who claim they don&#39;t have to follow any laws they so choose was straight forward, and not necessarily arguing for anyone to disobey law, or at anything Martov wrote.

I am referring to ANYONE who makes such a claim, that they prove this is the case by doing the act before authority. That&#39;s all.

In my job, every now and then a freshman or sophomore (it&#39;s never a junior or older) announce that such and such law or school policy (which does not have the weight of law, but can be enforced at a school site) is whacked, and that they&#39;re not going to obey it. I tell them to violate it in front of authority, and after pressing them to do so, it causes them to rethink their conduct.

One of my purposes is to demonstrate how serious the concept to disobey is. It isn&#39;t easy. It&#39;s a tough road. This is very real stuff.

Midnight: Thanks for the control. I don&#39;t want to use such terms.
Martov: If you think I&#39;m a troll (I presume that means a cappie who&#39;s using pretense), just say so.
Yes I agree that only a law is challenged when it has a significant consequence to those whom it affects. That is why I said:


Laws are rarely passed in which are contrary to the ideals of the society in which they are passed. If indeed they are passed, then they are either wholly ignored or strongly attacked if their significance deserves that level.

But even you said it yourself, &#39;every now and then a freshman or sophomore.&#39;

Presumably the other students do not give a shit.

The majority either agrees with the particular law or deems it insignificant.

But you are right, that the law has a persuasiveness in its own right.

That is what the state is all about after all.

[Reuben]

There is a key reason why laws are not simply a reflection of social norms, which I believe Redstar has touched on.This is that most societies differentiate between a deviant act - ie one which runs counter to the social norms - and a criminal act. Most right thinking people do not wish to criminalise every act which they or even the majority deem to be distasteful or immoral. For example, if you asked people whether people should make jokes about september the 11th, most people would say no. If you asked them whether making jokes about september the 11th should be a criminal offence, then i would predict a far lower proportion of people should say yes. In other words most people can and should differnetiate between what is wrong in their mind and what should be criminalised. Another way of putting this is to suggest that people can differentiate between what people should do and what they believe they have the right to do (ie voltaire - i a disagree with what you are saying but i will defend to the death your right to say it. If I was to go out in a skirt then -insofar as I am bloke - this would run counter to social norms but would not be illegal.

A key element here is the differentiation between a public act and a private act. JS Mill - quite rightly in my opinion - argued that society only has the right to to limit somebody&#39;s actions at the point at which they eeffect others - even one deems the actions of that person wrong or immoral or not in that person&#39;s best interests.


The question then is whether one deems an animal a being worthy of protection before the law.I would not like to venture a firm opinion on this but i would say that it is completely inconsistent to ban zoophilia on account of animal protection while keeping animal slaighter legal.

[Marsella]

That&#39;s a fair point Reuben.

But when analyzing society, you don&#39;t look at matters of joke taste, or whether farting in public is repugnant, but rather at the real issues effecting society.

Attitudes towards sex, racism, sexuality and class are generally considered the most important.

Important difference.

[LOTFW]

Presumably the other students do not give a shit.

The majority either agrees with the particular law or deems it insignificant.

Actually, that was sort of a joke, that does have truth in your answer. It isn&#39;t that our 17 and 18 year olds don&#39;t give a shit; it&#39;s that their interests become far less to respond to politics, and more interested in partying, and what we call seniorites; which now begins in 11th grade.

Many ARE political, and defiant, but the numbers go down as their ability to drive a car goes up.


The bourgeoisie has been a progressive force. Where they act progressively I support it. Where they do not, I do not support it. It is not a matter of simply &#39;they said it, therefore it must be wrong.&#39; We do need to analyze each issue separately.


QUOTE
In the United States, would violate the constitution.


This is a true statement, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I&#39;m simply pointing out that the Equal Protection Clause of the14th Amendment protects workers from having their businesses shut down by the state. Everyone has a right to buy, sell, and work, and no law can prevent this.




Fortunately, neither of us are American, are we?

It is impossible for me NOT to be a citizen of the United States. The Constitution says I am, and if I were to sue the state for violating my rights, I&#39;d HAVE to claim I am a citizen of the U.S. and the state wherein I reside, which is the language of the 14th Amendment.

While I like you (I presume) am an international, it would be absurd to pretend the USA doesn&#39;t exist, nor 50 state constitutions as well.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:38 pm
That&#39;s a fair point Reuben.

But when analyzing society, you don&#39;t look at matters of joke taste, or whether farting in public is repugnant, but rather at the real issues effecting society.

Attitudes towards sex, racism, sexuality and class are generally considered the most important.

Important difference.
It is an important difference but one that does not necessarily negate my point. You mentioned attitudes towards sex and sexuality as being real issues affecting society. I believe it is probable that in many countries - including Britain - homosexiuality was legalised before the majority of people came to regrd it as a a normal and perfectly acceptable lifstyle. I would also suggest that today there are millions of people who would suggest there is something wrong with homosexuality but would not call for it to be made illegal. As such, the differentiation between people&#39;s moral stance on matters and their legal stance remains relevant even to those issues which you deem important matters.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

What matters is the social conditions in which they are brought up.
The only way in which that could matter is if the social conditions in which a judge was brought up directly and significantly affected his judgements, which in general does not happen to the extent that you claim it does. Judges are expected to act with reasonable amount of impartiality, and even in cases where this does not happen it doesn&#39;t really prove or suggest anything of material importance. Corruption within the law is not an argument against the law, and I personally don&#39;t accept that one can ascertain that judges will rule against zoophilia just because no one in their social circle had sex with animals.



Law has consistently being the upholder of backwards social issues.

From the notion that a woman is a man&#39;s property, to stances on abortion, rape, homosexuality and so forth. How are they not social issues?
I never said the courts do not exist to uphold stances on social issues, I said that they do not exist to implement the social issues of one class. Indeed law has been the upholder of backwards social issues, but not exclusively; law has made some concessions to liberals in recent years.



I would imagine the legality of Zoophilia to have numerous economic consequences.

The bourgeoisie class will simply weight them up and decide whether it is worth it.
I must have forgotten what you were arguing in the first place, because it now appears that you are being inconsistent.

Did you not originally argue that interpretation of the Constitution depended on the "values and ideals" of the ruling class? Yet now you appear to be saying that it depends on its economic implications. So which is it, is it the economic or the social implications of a right that determine whether or not it is enumerated? Of course you would say both, but which is more important?

You are right, the legality of zoophilia, like any legal issue, would have certain economic consequences. But unless these consequences amount to a very real and serious threat to the economy, they are likely to be considered at length by the courts.

Similarly, the courts would necessarily not strike down legislation (or uphold legislation) on the grounds that the ruling class morally oppose zoophilia. Maybe many years ago that would have been the case, but in recent decades there have been a number of key developments in how the superior courts treat human rights and a lot of judges have chosen to defer authority to the individual regarding conduct in the bedroom.


Yeah, I largely agree. What is the point?
The point is that even though people may not like zoophilia they have shown support for the rights and principles that could justify its legalization.


No offense mate, and do not take this personally, but that is laughable.
You may think so, but the fact of the matter is that many landmark decisions have been made using the natural rights theory.



And I might add that those natural rights are constantly changing.
Well yeah, they change with societal norms. You have to remember that I never said people didn&#39;t make law, I just said that it&#39;s not as simple as that, i.e. the people do not decide every single application of every single principle in law. Natural rights rarely deal with specifics such as homosexuality or zoophilia; rather, they deal with broader rights such as the right to bodily integrity, privacy etc.



I am asking where do these arguments come from?&#33;

You never addressed the human personality doctrine, which states that human rights derive from their being human. It&#39;s rather complicated and can only really work on a case-by-case basis.

But you&#39;re right, a lot of it certainly stems from the nature of the economy. But just because a judge makes a certain decision based on economic grounds (and he&#39;s rarely going to say it&#39;s based on economic grounds) doesn&#39;t mean he can&#39;t make any other decisions. A judge, in giving his judgement, will enumerate several reasons as to why, for example, women should be considered as equals before the law with reference to the constitution. Judges in future can then be pressed to consider and act upon these reasons--that&#39;s where precedent comes in.



Well, I don&#39;t know the circumstances of Ireland. But I would imagine the stance towards marriage would be changed by parliament, similar to England?
Marriage is not the only issue that could threaten the nuclear family. In fact a more analogous issue would be anal sex, whch was legalized by the European Court of Human Rights in both the UK and Ireland in Dudgeon v United Kingdom and Norris v Ireland respectively.


But the absence of a law does not necessarily mean the absence of a societal norm.

Let&#39;s just say there was no law prohibiting zoophilia; parliament had more important things to do (raising their wages for example.)

Now, a man is caught fucking his cat.

You don&#39;t think he would bear any consequences in our current society?

Of course he would, from the stigma attached to it, the damage to his family name, to his employment prospects. Law just aims to make sure that punishment happens.

There is a difference between being stigmatized and having a basic right unduly violate. Of course most criminal offences also carry with them social stigmas, but it does not necessarily follow that all stgmatized acts should be (or are) criminal acts. I&#39;m sure in the aftermath of the legalization of segregation black people on reviously white-only beahes and such got somedirty looks, and in fact the state had to send federal troops to one US high school to enforce the anti-segregation laws at one point. This did not make the anti-segregation laws illegitimate.

[Marsella]

Sorry, I&#39;ve gotta go to work but I&#39;ll respond ASAP.

LOTFW:


It is impossible for me NOT to be a citizen of the United States. The Constitution says I am, and if I were to sue the state for violating my rights, I&#39;d HAVE to claim I am a citizen of the U.S. and the state wherein I reside, which is the language of the 14th Amendment.

While I like you (I presume) am an international, it would be absurd to pretend the USA doesn&#39;t exist, nor 50 state constitutions as well.

I should have been clearer. I was referring to myself and RedStar1916.

Unfortunately, your constitution does not apply globally. :P

[Lynx]

The article entry on Wikipedia gives some indication of current legal status in various countries. See link below and second Wiki article on Zoosexuality and the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

[Marsella]

The only way in which that could matter is if the social conditions in which a judge was brought up directly and significantly affected his judgements, which in general does not happen to the extent that you claim it does. Judges are expected to act with reasonable amount of impartiality, and even in cases where this does not happen it doesn&#39;t really prove or suggest anything of material importance. Corruption within the law is not an argument against the law, and I personally don&#39;t accept that one can ascertain that judges will rule against zoophilia just because no one in their social circle had sex with animals.

NO&#33; NO&#33; NO&#33;

I think you have misunderstood completely&#33;

You will never hear a judge say &#39;I state this to improve the conditions of the ruling class.&#39;

That is simply not how the system works, even though the effect is the same.

However, do you really think that a white, middle class, male judge is not effected by his social upbringing? Do you think people live in a vacuum? Social being determines consciousness, right?

And even so, that was not exactly my point. A judge can be as objective as he pleases, but it is still for capitalism that he decrees.

Impartiality&#33; That is simply nonsense.

A judge does not reason without reference to his situation, or like above from a God. It is much, much more complex than that.

Don&#39;t let their words fool you&#33;


I never said the courts do not exist to uphold stances on social issues, I said that they do not exist to implement the social issues of one class. Indeed law has been the upholder of backwards social issues, but not exclusively; law has made some concessions to liberals in recent years.

They have never made one concession that would compromise the rule of the bourgeoisie class.

And what concessions incidentally?

And how is that any threat, of any nature, to capitalism or the ruling class?

They might decide that a particular form of torture is indeed torture, but how is that a concession in any form, apart from attempting to legitimize the &#39;good looks&#39; of the state?

Its just the upper echelons of society squabbling over their confused morality.


Did you not originally argue that interpretation of the Constitution depended on the "values and ideals" of the ruling class? Yet now you appear to be saying that it depends on its economic implications. So which is it, is it the economic or the social implications of a right that determine whether or not it is enumerated? Of course you would say both, but which is more important?

Values and ideals come from the economic mode of production.

Why do you think we value &#39;freedom&#39; so much in a capitalist society? Could it be that the capitalism desires a free and expendable workforce, which marks it significantly from feudalism or slavery.

Loyalty was an admired trait in a feudal society because it a feudal system relies on the obedience of serfs and the noble free-men to their superiors. It was a pyramid like system.


Similarly, the courts would necessarily not strike down legislation (or uphold legislation) on the grounds that the ruling class morally oppose zoophilia. Maybe many years ago that would have been the case, but in recent decades there have been a number of key developments in how the superior courts treat human rights and a lot of judges have chosen to defer authority to the individual regarding conduct in the bedroom.

Perhaps because ruling class morality has changed?


You may think so, but the fact of the matter is that many landmark decisions have been made using the natural rights theory.

Let me explain what natural rights theory really is:

&#39;This is a natural right, because I say it to be, therefore it must be upheld.&#39;

It is not an objective criteria to make decisions, because as you have already agreed, those natural rights are always changing.

It is a good way for judges to hide their own personal opinions behind &#39;naturalness.&#39;


You never addressed the human personality doctrine, which states that human rights derive from their being human. It&#39;s rather complicated and can only really work on a case-by-case basis.

Never heard of it, although I have not read many cases where it may arise.


But you&#39;re right, a lot of it certainly stems from the nature of the economy. But just because a judge makes a certain decision based on economic grounds (and he&#39;s rarely going to say it&#39;s based on economic grounds) doesn&#39;t mean he can&#39;t make any other decisions. A judge, in giving his judgement, will enumerate several reasons as to why, for example, women should be considered as equals before the law with reference to the constitution. Judges in future can then be pressed to consider and act upon these reasons--that&#39;s where precedent comes in.

You have yet to come across the law of torts have you? :lol:

Let me tell you, that if law had a capitalist equivalent it would be torts&#33;

Cases are almost wholly decided on economic grounds.

And judges fucking say so&#33;

Negligence, which is the most litigated area of torts, and probably the most litigated area of law, is up to its neck in economic decisions.

The negligence calculus is an example of this: it basically involves: the probability of a risk, the seriousness of the harm likely to result from the materialization of that risk, the burden of taking precautions against the risk, the social utility of the risky area.

In reference to the burden of precautions, if that burden to take precautions is too economically damaging, the courts may be unwilling to grant relief. For example, I forget what the case was called, but basically there was a mountain range which was visited by tourists. A tourist fell off the landmark and sued the local council. Now, would the burden of taking a precaution to that risk, i.e. building a fence around that natural landmark, was simply too economically burdensome, as well as disruptive to the social utility of the landmark - its natural beauty would be tarnished by a huge fucking fence&#33;

That same analogy is applied to all sorts of business cases, where something which may seriously threaten a businesses profit is thrown out of court.

Why? Because courts serve the function of applying laws which are compatible with capitalism.

Numerous cases are decided on the fear of the &#39;flood-gates issue.&#39; This is where the courts are unwilling to grant damages because they fear it will open up the floodgates to damages. For instance, this is particularly prevalent amongst areas of pure economic loss. For example, I employ an plumber to do some work, the plumber negligently destroys a major gas pipe. This puts out the power to the surrounding area, which takes months to restore, resulting in mass losses and job cuts. To what extent should the plumber be liable, if indeed liable at all?

It really is an economic concern, because the courts are concerned about not imposing too heavy a restrictions which will make an plumber, before he digs a hole, think &#39;fuck should I do this? what if I hit a gas pipe?&#33;&#39; and thus create all sort of uneconomic regulations which hinder development and profit. Yet the courts still want to have some personal responsibility involved.

I don&#39;t want to get too complicated, but show me any other area of torts - nuisance, mental harm, defamation and I can show how they are all involved with fundamental economic considerations.

Precedent is just a quick way of saying &#39;yeah this has been said before, I can&#39;t be fucked repeating myself.&#39;

And judges can always say &#39;times have changed, this precedent no longer applies.&#39;


Marriage is not the only issue that could threaten the nuclear family. In fact a more analogous issue would be anal sex, whch was legalized by the European Court of Human Rights in both the UK and Ireland in Dudgeon v United Kingdom and Norris v Ireland respectively.

How could anal sex damage the prospects of the nuclear family, the financial family?

Most progressive capitalists (and capitalists are (or perhaps more correctly &#39;were&#39;) progressive) support the idea that what you do in your bedroom is a private matter.

That is really a reflection of the so-called freedom which capitalism claims to provide.


There is a difference between being stigmatized and having a basic right unduly violate. Of course most criminal offences also carry with them social stigmas, but it does not necessarily follow that all stgmatized acts should be (or are) criminal acts. I&#39;m sure in the aftermath of the legalization of segregation black people on reviously white-only beahes and such got somedirty looks, and in fact the state had to send federal troops to one US high school to enforce the anti-segregation laws at one point. This did not make the anti-segregation laws illegitimate.

No, the majority of acts which are looked down upon are indeed illegal.

Stealing, unjust abuse of marriage, murder, torture etc etc.

My point was that laws stem from society, that stealing, murder, homosexuality etc were unwritten crimes before they were laws.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 05:41 pm
Part of these discussions that write of "what animals would want" are pretty silly.

Why? Most animals that humans interact with have little trouble communicating their needs without the need of verbal communication.

Most cat and dog owners know when their pet is hungry or wants to go out, for example.

True, they can&#39;t elucidate complex philosophical subjects, but they have no need or desire to.


My guess is that, if the animals could communicate to us in the detailed way we communicate with one another, they&#39;d probably tell us to leave them the hell alone.

The reason animals can&#39;t communicate in the detailed way that humans can is because they don&#39;t need to. Evolution abhors waste, and the ability to deal with complex abstractions would be needlessly extravagant in all animals but humans.


Maybe they&#39;d make friendships with us; maybe they&#39;d learn from us and vice-versa. But the main message they&#39;d give us would probably be:

Don&#39;t eat us; don&#39;t make us do hard labor; we&#39;re not your transportation - take a bus&#33;

Stuff like that.

Animals are already capable of communicating what they like and what they don&#39;t like - try riding a horse that does not want you to ride it. Even if you do manage to get on, it will do it&#39;s best to throw you off.

Remember that animals, unlike humans, have no reservations whatsoever about communicating what they want.


PROBABLY along those same lines would be, "Don&#39;t fuck me, thank you very much." (I write "probably" as their may be an occasional interest in just that among some of them. But I amusingly degress...)

If an animal doesn&#39;t want to be fucked, it doesn&#39;t need to tell you. Depending on it&#39;s temperament, it will simply move off, or it will lash out. Believe me, most humans come off worse when an animal decides to lash out.


Because we&#39;re not going to stop eating them (and they&#39;re tasty&#33;), and making them do burden-labor, and use them for pulling our carriages in Central Park; they&#39;re not going to be able to stop some of us from having sex with them (if you want to call it sex.)

Just try to have sex with an animal that doesn&#39;t want you to. Have someone ready to call the hospital.


Since they can&#39;t stop us,

Most animals are bigger and stronger than humans, and have things like powerful jaws and claws. Try bossing a lion about and you&#39;ll get wtfpwned.

[Luís Henrique]

Zoophylia cannot be banned - it is a "crime" without victim. Public sexual acts with animals will be probably repressed, just as public sexual acts between people.

It will never be "accepted", however. A zoophyle displays a disturbing symptom of social inadequacy, that makes him/her unable to social convivence - whether in a capitalist, pre-capitalist, or communist society.

It seems people have some difficulty to understand the difference between something that should be forbidden by law (such as killing people, for instance), and things that must remain legal, but will certainly be frowned upon, thus necessarily discriminating against people who do them. A simple example to put it in perspective: picking your nose and eating the boogies should remain legal; nobody should be legally punished for doing it. It will always get a negative response, though. In this sence, it is not, and will probably never be, acceptable. And there is no reason it should be otherwise.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:00 pm
Animals are already capable of communicating what they like and what they don&#39;t like - try riding a horse that does not want you to ride it. Even if you do manage to get on, it will do it&#39;s best to throw you off.
Yes. That is the reason we train them - ie, break their will, so that they learn to never again repeal a rider.

Luís Henrique

[ahab]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2007 06:31 pm
Since there&#39;s obviously more sexual freedom in a socialist state, I am curious. What is everyone&#39;s stand on Zoophilia. Would it be accepted in a post-revolution world?

Please, I know this seems like flame bait, but you may leave any of your flames at the door on this thread. Thanks.
personally I think its fucked up, and i&#39;d probably say somethin if I saw it goin down, but its not really my place to tell people what to do either

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by ahab+December 15, 2007 05:05 pm--> (ahab @ December 15, 2007 05:05 pm)
Red [email protected] 10, 2007 06:31 pm
Since there&#39;s obviously more sexual freedom in a socialist state, I am curious. What is everyone&#39;s stand on Zoophilia. Would it be accepted in a post-revolution world?

Please, I know this seems like flame bait, but you may leave any of your flames at the door on this thread. Thanks.
personally I think its fucked up, and i&#39;d probably say somethin if I saw it goin down, but its not really my place to tell people what to do either [/b]
So by that logic, if you saw someone getting attacked, murdered or raped it wouldn&#39;t be your place to tell them to stop. Well if you take this comment seriously I&#39;ll be laughing my ass off at you.

[ahab]

Originally posted by petey+December 15, 2007 11:28 am--> (petey @ December 15, 2007 11:28 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:05 pm

Red [email protected] 10, 2007 06:31 pm
Since there&#39;s obviously more sexual freedom in a socialist state, I am curious. What is everyone&#39;s stand on Zoophilia. Would it be accepted in a post-revolution world?

Please, I know this seems like flame bait, but you may leave any of your flames at the door on this thread. Thanks.
personally I think its fucked up, and i&#39;d probably say somethin if I saw it goin down, but its not really my place to tell people what to do either
So by that logic, if you saw someone getting attacked, murdered or raped it wouldn&#39;t be your place to tell them to stop. Well if you take this comment seriously I&#39;ll be laughing my ass off at you. [/b]
no that would go against my libertarian philosophy of &#39;do what ever you want as long as what you do doesnt infringe on the rights and liberty&#39;s of others&#39; but that does not include animals, that doesnt mean if it was a nazi/fascist/cappie (post revolution) that I wouldnt kill them, but not for fuckin an animal. I am not an animal psychologist, maybe they like getting fucked by humans, maybe they dont, I cant read their fucking minds so I cant say shit either way, I just personally think its fucked up, but my opinion on that isnt enough to condemn someone

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by petey+December 15, 2007 12:12 pm--> (petey @ December 15, 2007 12:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:43 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:28 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:05 pm

Red [email protected] 10, 2007 06:31 pm
Since there&#39;s obviously more sexual freedom in a socialist state, I am curious. What is everyone&#39;s stand on Zoophilia. Would it be accepted in a post-revolution world?

Please, I know this seems like flame bait, but you may leave any of your flames at the door on this thread. Thanks.
personally I think its fucked up, and i&#39;d probably say somethin if I saw it goin down, but its not really my place to tell people what to do either
So by that logic, if you saw someone getting attacked, murdered or raped it wouldn&#39;t be your place to tell them to stop. Well if you take this comment seriously I&#39;ll be laughing my ass off at you.
no that would go against my libertarian philosophy of &#39;do what ever you want as long as what you do doesnt infringe on the rights and liberty&#39;s of others&#39; but that does not include animals, that doesnt mean if it was a nazi/fascist/cappie (post revolution) that I wouldnt kill them, but not for fuckin an animal. I am not an animal psychologist, maybe they like getting fucked by humans, maybe they dont, I cant read their fucking minds so I cant say shit either way, I just personally think its fucked up, but my opinion on that isnt enough to condemn someone
HAHAHAHAHA I&#39;m laughing at you. [/b]
:lol:

BTW I&#39;m undecided on the whole question of zoophilia, but Dan Savage is against it as the animals can&#39;t give consent. That kind of leans me towards that, since two, after all, are involved in sex and the feelings of the animal can&#39;t be totally disregarded.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:00 pm
Just try to have sex with an animal that doesn&#39;t want you to. Have someone ready to call the hospital.
What a generalization. :wacko:

Victims of abuse --human or non-human-- do not always react violently. If you were to hit several dogs with a belt, for example, you would find that reactions vary. Some would cower in fear, while others would viciously attack.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:24 am
Victims of abuse --human or non-human-- do not always react violently. If you were to hit several dogs with a belt, for example, you would find that reactions vary. Some would cower in fear, while others would viciously attack.
Animals can be tamed. I often see horses pulling charts; they quite obviously are not reacting against it in any way, even though their master sometimes whips them to make them go faster. Is this "consent"?

If it is, then "consent" is a meaningless word.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I find these points about animals giving consent unbearably stupid and reactionary.

The Hammurabi code stipulated that if a woman cried for help while being raped, then it was rape. But if she remained silent, then rape it was not. This kind of foolery about if animals don&#39;t kick or byte you out of it, they are somehow giving "consent" reminds me exactly of this.

Zoophiles are fucked up people; and their fuckedupness consists exactly in wanting to have sex with no consent.

Luís Henrique

[Marsella]

Consent between humans is a relatively easy thing to assess.

When arguing about whether animals can give consent it is a murkier thing, and one in which I cannot see applying to zoophilia, simply because humans dominate animals by eating them and subjecting them as instruments of labor.

It seems contradictory that we then ask &#39;did the animal consent to it?&#39; as if it has any bearing on the question. The only way you could come to that conclusion is if you considered anything which harmed animals as wrong. Few agree with that, however.

Humans dominate animals, the extent of that domination - as an instrument of labor or for a sexual purpose is in question.

Yet I cannot help feeling that since we slaughter animals to satisfy our hunger that it cannot be more morally wrong if we use them to satisfy our sexual needs.


The Hammurabi code stipulated that if a woman cried for help while being raped, then it was rape. But if she remained silent, then rape it was not. This kind of foolery about if animals don&#39;t kick or byte you out of it, they are somehow giving "consent" reminds me exactly of this.

I also remember a case where a judge tried to argue the same point, that a husband in marriage was expected to be quite forceful in the confines of marriage; &#39;she consented because they were married&#33;&#39; <_<


Zoophiles are fucked up people; and their fuckedupness consists exactly in wanting to have sex with no consent.

Seems like you are falling into your first point...

Zoophiles are people who want to have sex with animals, no?

Comparing that to a matter of consent, you have lost the plot entirely.

Quite simply, you have compared zoophilists to rapists.

The question of consent really shouldn&#39;t enter the picture, as you first stated.

God knows why you then introduced it into your argument that zoophiles are &#39;fucked up people&#39; because they want to &#39;have sex with no consent.&#39;

Perhaps you could explain it more clearer?


Public sexual acts with animals will be probably repressed, just as public sexual acts between people.

Really?&#33;

Why would two people having sex in a park still be outlawed in a communist society?

:blink:


Zoophylia cannot be banned - it is a "crime" without victim.

Why is it a crime? (Apart from its current legal status?)

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:51 pm

Zoophiles are fucked up people; and their fuckedupness consists exactly in wanting to have sex with no consent.

Seems like you are falling into your first point...

Zoophiles are people who want to have sex with animals, no?

Comparing that to a matter of consent, you have lost the plot entirely.

Quite simply, you have compared zoophilists to rapists.

The question of consent really shouldn&#39;t enter the picture, as you first stated.

God knows why you then introduced it into your argument that zoophiles are &#39;fucked up people&#39; because they want to &#39;have sex with no consent.&#39;

Perhaps you could explain it more clearer?
Because people who are not fucked up want to have sex with consent. Consent is an integral part of a sane sexual relationship (that is also the difference between banging an animal and eating an animal: consent is part of sexual relationship, but consent is not part of eating).

Having sex with something that cannot give consent is surely sign of mental illness.

Your argument would apply to necrophiles as well: since corpses cannot possibly give consent, then banging a corpse without consent is no problem.

As well, it would apply to paedophiles: since a baby cannot possibly give consent, then banging a baby without consent is no problem.

But the problem is not in having sex without consent: it is in wanting to have sex without bothering to earn consent. That is what makes paedophiles, necrophiles, and zoophiles crazed people. The only difference between them and rapists is that rapists choose to have sex without consent with people who could otherwise have given consent, while they choose sexual objects that cannot, due to their inability to communicate, give any consent.

Also, the only difference between zoophiles and paedophiles is the difference between animals and children: children are part of human society, animals are not, and so paedophilia is a crime, while zoophilia is at worst a victimless crime, and as such is unpunishable in a rational legal system.

And the only difference between zoophiles and necrophiles is even subtler: it is the fact that one can turn a living human being into a corpse, but no one can turn a human being into an animal.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:51 pm

Public sexual acts with animals will be probably repressed, just as public sexual acts between people.

Really?&#33;

Why would two people having sex in a park still be outlawed in a communist society?
Because, perhaps, they are bothering people who want to stroll in the park without having to become spectators of sexual acts?



Zoophylia cannot be banned - it is a "crime" without victim.

Why is it a crime? (Apart from its current legal status?)

Well, if the law says it is a crime, then a crime it is. There is no other valid definition of the word "crime", except this: it is something the law forbids. Thence the use of quote marks: if the law does not describe it as a crime, it is, at worst, a "crime": something that people believe is, or should be, a crime, but is not. And if the law effectively describes it as a crime, then it does it wrongly: since it has no victim, it cannot be effectively repressed, and putting it up as a crime creates more problems than it solves.

Luís Henrique

[Lynx]

Of course you can turn a human being into an animal - remove their rights. They then attain the same legal status as animals.

If zoophilia is not punishable the task of dealing with such people becomes a DIY affair.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:20 pm
Of course you can turn a human being into an animal - remove their rights. They then attain the same legal status as animals.
Having the same legal status as an animal is not the same as being an animal.

Luís Henrique

[Dimentio]

In Britain, sex with people who have an IQ below 70 is illegal, by the way.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

However, do you really think that a white, middle class, male judge is not effected by his social upbringing? Do you think people live in a vacuum? Social being determines consciousness, right?
I never said that judges are not affected by their upbringing or social experiences, of course they are. But my point still stands that this proves nothing of material importance. You never addressed my point that judges would not rule against zoophilia because no one in their social circle had sex with animals. I don&#39;t think you can argue with that, and yet that is what is relevant here.



And even so, that was not exactly my point. A judge can be as objective as he pleases, but it is still for capitalism that he decrees.
Yes. Obviously. But legalizing zoophilia isn&#39;t exactly "decreeing against capitalism" or whatever. Legalization of zoophilia does not mean the collapse of capitalism; so all your talk about judges basing their decision on their loyalty towards capitalism is irrelevant and will not be further entertained as I have made this point several times now and you have failed to refute it.



They have never made one concession that would compromise the rule of the bourgeoisie class.
Again, irrelevant. The rule of the bourgeoisie class would not be compromised by the legalization of zoophilia. Stay on topic please. Also, see above.



And what concessions incidentally?

The legalization of contraception and anal sex to name two.



And how is that any threat, of any nature, to capitalism or the ruling class?
I personally don&#39;t believe it is, just as I don&#39;t believe the legalization of zoophilia to be any threat to capitalism or the ruling class. I was responding to your argument that, in harming the concept of the nuclear family, zoophilia harms capitalism and therefore any judge in a capitalist system will rule against it. However zoophilia is only as damaging to the nuclear family as contraception, which allows sexually active couples to remain childless, or anal sex, which is an indirect green light for homosexuality.



Its just the upper echelons of society squabbling over their confused morality.
It is you who are confused. You seem to think that the bourgeoisie get together every now and again, sit around a giant table and discuss what their collective morality is. This is incorrect; different strands of the ruling class posess different views on morality. Thus the ruling class morality is not "confused", it is fragmented.



Perhaps because ruling class morality has changed?

It certainly has, especially regarding sexual freedom. Whether or not it has changed in relation to the specific offence of zoophilia is both questionable and irrelevant.


[your little introduction to torts]
What arrogance. I think this is you trying to say "I have studied more law than you, so I am right". Yes, I have been introduced to tort law, and there is nothing in your passage which was not explained in the first week of lectures. And yes, tort is almost by definition an economically-based area of law.

But this, again, is completely irrelevant. We are not talking about tort law here, we are talking about constitutional and criminal law. Tort law is about compensating people for economic and personal loss using financial means; it has nothing to do with human rights, where they come from or how they are to be protected in criminal legislation.



I don&#39;t want to get too complicated, but show me any other area of torts - nuisance, mental harm, defamation and I can show how they are all involved with fundamental economic considerations.
I don&#39;t have to; you are once again going off topic. Show me how the legality of zoophilia is a tort matter.



How could anal sex damage the prospects of the nuclear family, the financial family?
It gives the green light for homosexuality, which as many right-wingers will tell you is "anti-family" (that is, anti-traditional, nuclear family). It is sex that has no chance of procration, much like sex using contraceptives, which again harms the chance for the creation of a nuclear family.



No, the majority of acts which are looked down upon are indeed illegal.
"law and morality are not the same, and many things may be immoral which are not necessarily illegal"--Lord Coleridge CJ in the infamous English case R v Dudley & Stephens

Though I suppose you&#39;re now going to reject this reasoning of an English House of Lords judge as "bourgeois lies" just because he is a judge.



Stealing, unjust abuse of marriage, murder, torture etc etc.
How do most courts penalize unjust abuse of marriage? Is unjust abuse of marriage confined to violation of one of the persons&#39; rights and/or similar in form to breach of contract or are there relevant, numerous and widely imposed laws that punish unjust abuse of marriage purely on moral undertones?

I know most EU nations do not punish adultery, and anti-adultery laws in the US are rarely if ever enforced. Also as far as I know sex outside marriage is not a punishable offence in most first world jurisdictions. Yet these would be considered immoral.

--------------------------------------------

I apologize if the tone of my post was at all cold or hostile. Nothing against you I&#39;m just feeling a bit under the weather and cranky. ;)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Zoophiles are fucked up people; and their fuckedupness consists exactly in wanting to have sex with no consent.

That&#39;s like saying that women who use vibrators are fucked up and socially inadequate people because the vibrators can&#39;t consent.

"The vibrators, won&#39;t someone PLEASE think of the vibrators&#33;&#33;"

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:43 pm
However zoophilia is only as damaging to the nuclear family as contraception, which allows sexually active couples to remain childless, or anal sex, which is an indirect green light for homosexuality.
In fact, contraception, abortion, divorce, women in the work force, are by far much more damaging to the nuclear family than zoophylia could ever be: they are mass phenomena, while zoophylia has to do with a very minoritary portion of the populace - who probably won&#39;t start nuclear families anyway, even if they are totally scared from fulfilling their desires by a brutally repressive legislation.

After all, it is not as every person in the planet is just waiting the legalisation of zoophylia to engage in hot sex with mares and bulls.

Zoophylia, per se, isn&#39;t illegal in Brazil, which doesn&#39;t seem to harm nuclear families, and even less the accumulation of capital...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:49 pm
That&#39;s like saying that women who use vibrators are fucked up and socially inadequate people because the vibrators can&#39;t consent.

"The vibrators, won&#39;t someone PLEASE think of the vibrators&#33;&#33;"
As if only women used vibrators...

Listen, there may be cases in which people use animals for sexual satisfaction out of lack of a better option. This isn&#39;t fundamentally different from masturbation, although it is certainly a particularly gross form of masturbation.

The problem is with people who fancy they have a meaningful relationship with animals, and with people who are unable to have satisfaction in a sexual relationship with another human being. This is what we call zoophylia, not the countryside boy who occasionally bangs a sheep while fantasising Nicole Kidman.

Luís Henrique

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 16, 2007 10:46 am--> (Luís Henrique @ December 16, 2007 10:46 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 02:20 pm
Of course you can turn a human being into an animal - remove their rights. They then attain the same legal status as animals.
Having the same legal status as an animal is not the same as being an animal.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Since legal status determines how we are treated, it is as if we were the same as animals. Legal niceties aside, humans have been treated and disposed of like animals. It has happened in the past. It still does. What distinction are you trying to make?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:30 pm
Since legal status determines how we are treated, it is as if we were the same as animals. Legal niceties aside, humans have been treated and disposed of like animals. It has happened in the past. It still does. What distinction are you trying to make?
If I feel the need to bang a corpse, I can kill a person and then bang the corpse.

If I feel the need to bang a cow, I have to find an actual cow.

That&#39;s why necrophiles are considered more dangerous than zoophiles.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:02 pm
In Britain, sex with people who have an IQ below 70 is illegal, by the way.
Yes, it prevents us from having sex with Tories.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 16, 2007 09:49 pm
Yes, it prevents us from having sex with Tories.
Toriophyilia is quite disgusting too.

Luís Henrique

[Felicia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:41 pm
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
hmmm.... I&#39;m going to disagree with this statement.

if the animal comes up to you fucks a willing human partner, then walks away... that&#39;s it&#39;s choice, it&#39;s not held against it&#39;s will. when animals are on the receiving end however, you can&#39;t be so sure.


I agree with spartan&#39;s first statement in this thread


The fact remains that you cant tell whether the animal is truely enjoying the experience or not or just being submissive to its owner so, though i am against animal right nutters, i personally find this practice, like paedophilia, unacceptable and potentially harmful to animals and to the rest of society.

The fact is, like with the raising of children, the owning of animals requires a duty of care by the owner which should never develop into exploitation of those who rely on your care.

Pets are like your children...


but anyways, lol, man-animal love is legal in a couple US states... washington and jersey (I think, don&#39;t quote me)...

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 16, 2007 12:15 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 16, 2007 12:15 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 10:24 am
Victims of abuse --human or non-human-- do not always react violently. If you were to hit several dogs with a belt, for example, you would find that reactions vary. Some would cower in fear, while others would viciously attack.
Animals can be tamed. I often see horses pulling charts; they quite obviously are not reacting against it in any way, even though their master sometimes whips them to make them go faster. Is this "consent"?

If it is, then "consent" is a meaningless word.

Luís Henrique [/b]
You misinterpreted my post.

The point I was making was it is impossible to tell, because there is no universal reaction to oppressive behavior.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Felicia+December 16, 2007 10:14 pm--> (Felicia @ December 16, 2007 10:14 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 09:41 pm
Sexual freedom requires the consent of both partners. Quite obviously animals cannot consent to sexual acts.
hmmm.... I&#39;m going to disagree with this statement.

if the animal comes up to you fucks a willing human partner, then walks away... that&#39;s it&#39;s choice, it&#39;s not held against it&#39;s will. when animals are on the receiving end however, you can&#39;t be so sure. [/b]
If an animal fucks a willing partner, that is one thing. But it stops being consensual when the human becomes a active (rather than passive) participant.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 16, 2007 09:37 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 16, 2007 09:37 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:30 pm
Since legal status determines how we are treated, it is as if we were the same as animals. Legal niceties aside, humans have been treated and disposed of like animals. It has happened in the past. It still does. What distinction are you trying to make?
If I feel the need to bang a corpse, I can kill a person and then bang the corpse.

If I feel the need to bang a cow, I have to find an actual cow.

That&#39;s why necrophiles are considered more dangerous than zoophiles.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Wow, that is a totally misleading statement.

That would make murderers more dangerous/coercive than zoophiles.

The "killing" portion falls outside of the category of necrophilia and into the category of murder, which is obviously the dangerous/coercive aspect of your statement.

Necrophilia, simply put, is sexual intimacy with a dead body. It makes no distinction of how the body was obtained.

[Vanguard1917]

if the animal comes up to you fucks a willing human partner, then walks away... that&#39;s it&#39;s choice, it&#39;s not held against it&#39;s will. when animals are on the receiving end however, you can&#39;t be so sure.

Animals don&#39;t make conscious choices and they don&#39;t have &#39;wills&#39; - i.e. &#39;the faculty of conscious and...deliberate action&#39; (will (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will)). Therefore, animals cannot give consent and they cannot not give consent, since the act of giving or not giving consent requires the ability to make conscious decisions. counterblast is confusing matters by applying a uniquely human act - the act of consenting - to non-human beings.

I can think of many reasons why i find having sexual relations with animals personally objectionable. But to suggest that the reason bestiality is wrong is because of the a &#39;lack of consent by the animal&#39; borders on the ludicrous.

[Lynx]

Animal mating behavior implies that consent is required. Many species &#39;choose&#39; their mates, it is a common evolutionary trait. What other reason is there to perform mating rituals?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:56 am
That would make murderers more dangerous/coercive than zoophiles.
In case you didn&#39;t notice, I did not say that necrophiles are more dangerous than zoophiles.

I said they are considered more dangerous.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:50 am
Animal mating behavior implies that consent is required. Many species &#39;choose&#39; their mates, it is a common evolutionary trait. What other reason is there to perform mating rituals?
If we try to apply human standards to animals, we have to put all tomcats in jail as rapists. Because that&#39;s what a normal sexual relationship between cats look like: as brutal rape.

Luís Henrique

[Lynx]

a normal sexual relationship between cats
Well, that is the interpretation, therefore no other standard need apply.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:35 am
Animals don&#39;t make conscious choices and they don&#39;t have &#39;wills&#39; - i.e. &#39;the faculty of conscious and...deliberate action&#39; (will (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will)). Therefore, animals cannot give consent and they cannot not give consent, since the act of giving or not giving consent requires the ability to make conscious decisions. counterblast is confusing matters by applying a uniquely human act - the act of consenting - to non-human beings.

I can think of many reasons why i find having sexual relations with animals personally objectionable. But to suggest that the reason bestiality is wrong is because of the a &#39;lack of consent by the animal&#39; borders on the ludicrous.
I think you missed the part where humans are also animals...

Anyway, I&#39;m only replying to this for the benefit of others, as I know you will take no notice (you never do). You will continue to blindly argue something, for which you have no evidence. It is funny, almost like people who believe in God using sophisticated language play to "prove" the existence of God.

Well, at least they try and prove something, you just shit out this rubbish...



So, humans are animals, and the only difference between humans and other animals is in degree. So, if most humans have, for example, a level of free will of a hundred, then there are some humans with less then a hundred (obviously). Then you look at animals, scientists who work in the field would, I&#39;m sure, say that chimpanzees would have a high level of free will (comparable to that of a three or four year old). Etc. Etc.

Anyway, it ignores the entire point that discussions of free will are pointless.



So, then if non-human animals have some level of free will (and they must, because they are the same sort of thing as human animals), then surely they can consent to a certain level.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 20, 2007 02:22 am
I think you missed the part where humans are also animals...
See, day is when there is sunlight, as opposed to night, isn&#39;t it?

But the day has 24 hours, so we must conclude that the sun never sets.

This kind of "reasoning" doesn&#39;t take us much far.

Luís Henrique

[JoePedo]

Since there&#39;s obviously more sexual freedom in a socialist state, I am curious. What is everyone&#39;s stand on Zoophilia. Would it be accepted in a post-revolution world?

Please, I know this seems like flame bait, but you may leave any of your flames at the door on this thread. Thanks.

I, for one, support our zooerotic bretheren - as I support the paederotic, the necroerotic, the furry community, hispanic immigrants, persons of arabic descent, the right of persons to practice the faith of islam without being subject to attacks or discrimination... and if more groups end up being scapegoated for not being white, christian, heterosexual, and/or male, I'll probably support them too.

The more hated a group is, the more certain it is that they are, in fact, inherently superior to whatever group tries to hate them to feel better about their own inadequacies.

[RedAnarchist]

So, paedophiles are "inherently superior" to much of the world? I can understand if you were talking about groups that are actually oppressed, but you're seriously defending child abusers?

[Luís Henrique]

So, paedophiles are "inherently superior" to much of the world? I can understand if you were talking about groups that are actually oppressed, but you're seriously defending child abusers?

Of course he is, haven't you noticed his screen name?

Apart from that, his reasoning is really ridiculous. Here is a list of "superior" people, according to him: Paedophiles, serial killers, blackmailers, hucksters, womanisers, rapists, pimps, capitalists, and, last but not least, Nazis.

Luís Henrique

[Black Dagger]

Joe, what do you mean by 'paederotic'?

[Sergei Simonov]

Let's see...

There are people's wars being fought in various zones of the developing world, American imperialist adventurism in the Middle East, a burgeoning dictatorship in the next European superpower, the exploitation by reactionaries of a declining standard of living in the USA, and a host of other issues directly relevant to the class interests of working people and the political interests of their vanguard.

And what are we doing here? Discussing an "issue" only the most ridiculously bohemian sexual freeeeeeedumb types could care about?

Yeah. And people wonder why the demography of radical left involvement is so skewed in favor of young middle class dilettantes taking brief vacations from their petit bourgeois lifepaths.

Give me a break.

[Black Dagger]

And what are we doing here? Discussing an "issue" only the most ridiculously bohemian sexual freeeeeeedumb types could care about?

Yeah. And people wonder why the demography of radical left involvement is so skewed in favor of young middle class dilettantes taking brief vacations from their petit bourgeois lifepaths.

Give me a break.This is a bit melodramatic; i guess you would prefer this issue was not discussed at all?

In reality this issue/thread is but one of a dozen currently under discussion in this forum and is hardly representative of the nature of discussions in the discrimination forum generally.

Now please, unless you wish to contribute to an ongoing discussion (or begun one yourself) please refrain from making pointless, unhelpful posts that simply dismiss issues currently being discussed by others.

[RedAnarchist]

This is a bit melodramatic; i guess you would prefer this issue was not discussed at all?

In reality this issue/thread is but one of a dozen currently under discussion in this forum and is hardly representative of the nature of discussions in the discrimination forum generally.

And this is just one leftist forum consisting of a few thousand leftists, which is a tiny fraction of the total number of leftists in the world.

[Redscare102]

Joe, what do you mean by 'paederotic'?

I think he means he wants to fuck children. :eek: I'm okay with 14+, but anything under that... can't really consent reasonably, in most cases.

And, on the subject of beastiality (or zoophilia, if you wan't to use nicer wording)... erm... why would you even WANT TO do it? O_o

[Cryotank Screams]

And what are we doing here?

Discussing topics on a discussion board!? What the hell were we thinking, :rolleyes:.



erm... why would you even WANT TO do it?


Why would you even WANT TO fuck humans?

[Caelo]

I,m not sure what going on in the discussion but there seem to be a heated discussion about zoophilia and whether or n ot it should be illegal. First things first if the law that condemns zoophilia happens to condemn sodomy as well like is the case for most of these laws around the world it should obviously be dissolved. Anal sex shouldn't be illegal. Second is the act of having sex with an animal abuse, number two on the list of how to get a man in jail for screwing his (enter animal here), well that should be self evident if abuse has occurred the animal should reflect it pain, death, injury, violent tendencies, starvation, etc. I mean you can notice when an animal has been abused. Third psychological problems in the human, last time I checked both zoophilia, sexual attraction to non-human animals, and bestiality, the act of having sex with a or more non-human animal(s), are paraphilias not mental pathaloies in and amongst themselves. Secular governments cannot impose laws solely on the principal that a religion finds it immoral. Finally laws can be made representing the morality of the majority as elected to office but personal I don't think 51% of people care if some shmoe has sex with his animal. Laws that should exist thou shall not screw thy neighbors animals. Thou shall not kill or abuse an animal while screwing it. Thou shall not practice lewd behavior in public, that cover don't screw your animals in public.
I read some odd thing about laws not being applicable to thouse who wont follow them, that's only true in ideal democracies where more than 50% of the population is against the law and in anarchism. What is true is if a law is not enforceable, because for instance an illegal action must be done to obtain the evidence for conviction or because it is impossible to prove someones guilt, than the law should not exist it is a waist of resources. Zoophilia is a classic example of the first it maybe illegal but if you have sex with your own animal within the walls of your home and the animal can show no signs of abuse there is no reason to warrant an invasion of your home or the removal of said animal and no way to prove you had sex with the animal provided that no one is allowed to view this act accidentally or otherwise. Committing suicide is not illegal only attempting and failing is illegal.