Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 09-29-2007, 07:15 PM

Was in a discussion a while back about the issue and I still don't see a rational explanation for why pets *do* fall into a category of "society needs to care about it". Seriously, the only arguments that hold water at all are a) harm to the pet, b) harm to the person doing it and c) lack of consent. A is absurd, as is C, in the case of any animal of sufficient size to survive an attempt. Why? Because animals are, in general, less likely to allow something they don't like and far more well equipped to point this out to you, in a very painful and possible lethal way, than people are. IF your doing it to an animal too small to survive, you are way sicker than just being into animals. As for B... Any damn fool that wants to try to force themselves on something that can bite, scratch, kick or even strangle them to death, when it gets ****ed off at what is going on, deserves what happens to them imho. I suppose one could call it, "protection of idiots from endangering themselves", but there are about a billion other far stupider things that people legally do all the time, and we don't stop them from doing those things. The animal rights people know that B isn't a valid argument at all, which is why they never use it. Their argument is always that the "poor helpless animal that usually outweighs the person, is naturally armed, and lacks the self control to not lash out when they don't like what is being done to them, is going to be hurt in some fashion, because they can't 'consent' to it." Well, I don't know about you, but being able to refuse violently *sounds like* lack of consent to me. lol

Any other argument just amounts to "Ewe yuck! Well of course people *should* have some say in if you do *that*in your home." Same argument once used, and still used in some parts of the country, to declare certain sexual positions and/or toys illegal to use, or in the later case, buy or own (if you do something dumb, like having a house fire, so the *authorities* stumble across the collection you snuck in from the store in the next state).

"Ewe yuck!", is not a valid qualification for something to be, "important for society to stop people doing.", if it was, (and there are those that would have such be the case), damn near everything from what paintings you where allowed to have on your walls to how many feet from the shower you walked before you had to be dressed would be on the list of, "Ewe yuck!", stuff you where not allowed to do. All you have to do is look at existing and defunct state laws to see the kind of insane BS you get when that becomes the criteria.

09-29-2007, 07:15 PM	#99
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	Re: Sex & Violence Was in a discussion a while back about the issue and I still don't see a rational explanation for why pets do fall into a category of "society needs to care about it". Seriously, the only arguments that hold water at all are a) harm to the pet, b) harm to the person doing it and c) lack of consent. A is absurd, as is C, in the case of any animal of sufficient size to survive an attempt. Why? Because animals are, in general, less likely to allow something they don't like and far more well equipped to point this out to you, in a very painful and possible lethal way, than people are. IF your doing it to an animal too small to survive, you are way sicker than just being into animals. As for B... Any damn fool that wants to try to force themselves on something that can bite, scratch, kick or even strangle them to death, when it gets ***ed off at what is going on, deserves what happens to them imho. I suppose one could call it, "protection of idiots from endangering themselves", but there are about a billion other far stupider things that people legally do all the time, and we don't stop them from doing those things. The animal rights people know that B isn't a valid argument at all, which is why they never use it. Their argument is always that the "poor helpless animal that usually outweighs the person, is naturally armed, and lacks the self control to not lash out when they don't like what is being done to them, is going to be hurt in some fashion, because they can't 'consent' to it." Well, I don't know about you, but being able to refuse violently sounds like* lack of consent to me. lol Any other argument just amounts to "Ewe yuck! Well of course people should have some say in if you do thatin your home." Same argument once used, and still used in some parts of the country, to declare certain sexual positions and/or toys illegal to use, or in the later case, buy or own (if you do something dumb, like having a house fire, so the authorities stumble across the collection you snuck in from the store in the next state). "Ewe yuck!", is not a valid qualification for something to be, "important for society to stop people doing.", if it was, (and there are those that would have such be the case), damn near everything from what paintings you where allowed to have on your walls to how many feet from the shower you walked before you had to be dressed would be on the list of, "Ewe yuck!", stuff you where not allowed to do. All you have to do is look at existing and defunct state laws to see the kind of insane BS you get when that becomes the criteria.