Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia

[ok doser]

The prohibition of bestiality cannot be due to a lack of animal "consent," without prohibiting forced breeding as well.

He will ignore this, of course

 

[Town Heretic]

...and your contention that the illegality of beastiality was dependent on the animal's inability to give consent

No, that's just your dishonest attempt to side bar the conversation you were never a productive part of in your ongoing, obsessive need to be seen objecting to me.

 

[ok doser]

...and your contention that the illegality of beastiality was dependent on the animal's inability to give consent

No....

So you don't believe the illegality of beastiality is dependent on the animal's inability to give consent?

 

[ok doser]

If we define "trolling" as any data point that doesn't confirm your preferred theory...

"Trolling" and "obsessive" is his go-to when he's presented with a rebuttal that he can't address

By me


See also: "side bar"

 

[ok doser]

If we define "trolling" as any data point that doesn't confirm your preferred theory...


You said the law requires consent for every instance of sex. But it doesn't. Not when animals are involved. Animals can legally be forced by humans to have sex. The prohibition of bestiality cannot be due to a lack of animal "consent," without prohibiting forced breeding as well.

I believe in my own state bestiality was not, in itself, illegal - as long as the animal was not physically injured - until 2015! And that was because some guy was arrested for having sex with a cow, but was acquitted when, under the then-current animal cruelty law, he could not be shown to have broken any law.

Several other states, I believe, don't outright ban bestiality. Should they?

Worth returning to my SIL and her dairy herd

When she "procures" semen from the bull, she does it by manually stimulating him and collecting the ejaculate, without the bull's consent

If she does it for the purpose of obtaining semen for inseminating the cow, the law is not concerned that the bull can't consent

If she does it for fun, then it's beastiality and the law charges her because the bull can't consent

 

[Town Heretic]

"Trolling" and "obsessive" is his go-to when he's presented with a rebuttal that he can't address

By me


See also: "side bar"

"No, that's just your dishonest attempt to side bar the conversation you were never a productive part of in your ongoing, obsessive need to be seen objecting to me."

Supra.

That aside, any time you want to answer those two prior or pick up a substantive discussion on the point, glass, I'm game.

 

[ok doser]

What on earth made you think a demonstration was necessary? :dizzy:

 

[ok doser]

The prohibition of bestiality cannot be due to a lack of animal "consent," without prohibiting forced breeding as well.

He will ignore this, of course

It's like i have a crystal ball, ain't it? :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Just nudge/link/quote me, glass, else I'm unsubscribing to the thread until I hear from you that way. I'm disinterested in reposting to the troll's ongoing disinformation campaign.

Until then. :cheers:

 

[ok doser]

The prohibition of bestiality cannot be due to a lack of animal "consent," without prohibiting forced breeding as well.

And so, we're left with a conundrum

If not consent, then what?

Town has proposed a few poorly presented alternatives (risk of disease propagation, harm to animals, etc), none of which stand up to scrutiny


Just to be clear, my interest in getting town to discuss the concept of consent is rooted in my belief that societally acceptable pedophilia is inevitable, a belief that is waved aside by artie and town by their reliance on "consent"

I don't find the concept of consent persuasive for many reasons, not the least of which being that it's so poorly applied wrt beastiality

 

[Arthur Brain]

And so, we're left with a conundrum

If not consent, them what?

Town has proposed a few poorly presented alternatives (risk of disease propagation, harm to animals, etc), none of which stand up to scrutiny


Just to be clear, my interest in getting town to discuss the concept of consent is rooted in my belief that societally acceptable pedophilia is inevitable, a belief that is waved aside by artie and town by their reliance on "consent"

I don't find the concept of consent persuasive for many reasons, not the least of which being that it's so poorly applied wrt beastiality

It's 'waved aside' because it's ridiculous and only the incredibly ignorant, flat out dumb or paranoid would even pose such a stupid 'slippery slope' fallacy as inevitable. The fact is that laws have become increasingly stringent where it comes to safeguarding children from abuse, be that sexual or otherwise. Care to dispute that? If so, bring something to the table and by 'something' I mean an argument with concrete backup...

 

[ok doser]

It's 'waved aside' because it's ridiculous and only the incredibly ignorant, flat out dumb or paranoid would even pose such a stupid 'slippery slope' fallacy as inevitable. The fact is that laws have become increasingly stringent where it comes to safeguarding children from abuse, be that sexual or otherwise. Care to dispute that? If so, bring something to the table and by 'something' I mean an argument with concrete backup...

The opinion of a retarded brit means less than nothing to me artie :wave2:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The opinion of a retarded brit means less than nothing to me artie :wave2:

So, you can't even argue your case then. Figures.

I think that bridge of yours needs some renovation anyway.

:e4e:

 

[ok doser]

So, you can't even argue your case then.

Consent, artie


The topic is consent


Do try to focus

 

[ok doser]

For example, did you know that in New York State (and in many other states) a post-pubescent girl of any age can consent?


Hint: this only applies in one specific circumstance

 

[Arthur Brain]

Consent, artie


The topic is consent


Do try to focus

Eh, you're the one who 'revealed' your supposed interest - aka societal accepted pedophilia - so either get on with embarrassing yourself over not being able to justify that garbage or carry on with your usual boring antics...

 

[ok doser]

Eh, you're the one who 'revealed' your supposed interest - aka societal accepted pedophilia ...

In the context of consent, artie


Do try to keep up

 

[glassjester]

If she does it for the purpose of obtaining semen for inseminating the cow, the law is not concerned that the bull can't consent

If she does it for fun, then it's beastiality and the law charges her because the bull can't consent

I wonder how the female consents to the next step in the process. Or is sexual reproduction somehow not part of "every" sexual operation?

 

[ok doser]

I wonder how the female consents to the next step in the process. Or is sexual reproduction somehow not part of "every" sexual operation?

if i understand town's position (which is always difficult because he hates presenting his position clearly), the animals' inability to consent only matters when the "operation" is linked to the sexual gratification of the human


iow, "every" really means "in a narrowly defined context"

 

[glassjester]

if i understand town's position (which is always difficult because he hates presenting his position clearly), the animals' inability to consent only matters when the "operation" is linked to the sexual gratification of the human


iow, "every" really means "in a narrowly defined context"

So then it has nothing to do with consent or the animal's rights - because the same act could be performed on the animal (the animal "suffers" the same "injustice"), and all that determines the legality of the action is the emotional state of the human.

I don't think that's a tenable explanation.