Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Now, here it is, just as Roger predicted. Funny stuff!

I must have missed the civil rights claim. Was there one? It's not in the article cited.

I love slippery slope arguments. Everyone makes them, for and against. Guns, abortion, you name it. I'm sure someone made the donkey argument in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws against interracial marriage.

The point is that it always comes the the 'reasonable person' argument. That middle of the road man or woman who draws the line.

Adak, I'm pretty sure I know where you would have come down on Loving v. Virginia. The reason you don't say so now is the same reason no one else does - that what seemed radical, heretical, and against tradition to a large number of people turned out to be rational public policy.

Look at the 'biblical' justification by the segregationist judge ruling against the couple. The wave of ignorance coming off a man in a position of trust is terrifying.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

We evolve, Adak. The reason Christians are not still burning people at the stake or in other ways acting as atrociously as some conservative Muslims is that 'liberal' forces as well as a few hundred years of internal bloodshed have acted upon the church. There is still ethnic strife involving Christian populations, but none of it is sanctioned. People evolve, religions evolve. Maybe at some point they will go too far, but I for one am glad that noone listened to the Adaks of the past who fought for tradition and belittled change.

[Adak]

[quote=richlevy;843972]I must have missed the civil rights claim. Was there one? It's not in the article cited.

He has been charged with beastiality, which his attorney has announced they will be fighting as illegal as it violates Carlos's civil rights.

That's the announcement - but legal work has to be done before it can be filed.

I love slippery slope arguments. Everyone makes them, for and against. Guns, abortion, you name it. I'm sure someone made the donkey argument in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws against interracial marriage.

The point is that it always comes the the 'reasonable person' argument. That middle of the road man or woman who draws the line.

Adak, I'm pretty sure I know where you would have come down on Loving v. Virginia. The reason you don't say so now is the same reason no one else does - that what seemed radical, heretical, and against tradition to a large number of people turned out to be rational public policy.

Look at the 'biblical' justification by the segregationist judge ruling against the couple. The wave of ignorance coming off a man in a position of trust is terrifying.



We evolve, Adak. The reason Christians are not still burning people at the stake or in other ways acting as atrociously as some conservative Muslims is that 'liberal' forces as well as a few hundred years of internal bloodshed have acted upon the church. There is still ethnic strife involving Christian populations, but none of it is sanctioned. People evolve, religions evolve. Maybe at some point they will go too far, but I for one am glad that noone listened to the Adaks of the past who fought for tradition and belittled change.

That might be true for some people - my Bible says to love your neighbor, as yourself, to love your enemy, when they do you harm.

Mine never mentions this "burn them alive at the stake", so what you are calling "liberal" NOW, is really quite conservative with the original message of Jesus' teachings.

And what you are calling "conservative", in the days of the Inquisition and religious wars and laws, really were quite liberal, weren't they?

Because there is no torture recommendation in the Bible - that's something that some Liberals thought up, all on their own. They couldn't accept the real teachings of Christ - so they substituted in it's place, their own doctrine, of hate.

And now they want to substitute their own "living document" meanings for our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

No thanks!! We've seen where that kind of thinking leads, before.

[ZenGum]

That's not just a bit of a donkey ... that's a mighty fine piece of ass!

[toranokaze]

Jesus was all for the mixing of races and equality. God was against the mixing of animals, and wearing clothing made from more than one fabric.(But that is OT stuff and we are supposed to live in the spirit of the law not bounded to the letter so I think wool and manbearpig is still ok)

[Adak]

Re: Loving v Virginia:

Without any re-interpretation of this as a "living document", what does our Declaration of Independece ACTUALLY say?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

All that racial garbage was simply that - fear based garbage.

[ZenGum]

Well, to my reading, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" does seem to entail the right to shag donkeys, if you think it will make you happy. Who are we to say "no"?

Seriously, you can shoot animals and eat them; you can force-feed them and slaughter them; you can cage them and harvest eggs and milk; you can do medical experiments on them; in some cases you can shoot them just because you feel like shooting them; and if you own one, you can (humanely) put it to death at your whim.

But, you're not allowed to have sex with them.

Given all the things we can do, this isn't about animal rights.

There is *some* argument that there is a disease transmission risk, but that risk already exists with farms, pets and hunting. There's more risk from shagging humans. It's not about that.

I think the ban on bestiality really comes down to the vast majority of us going "eeeiiiuuwww!!" at the idea, and no-one wanting to be the one to speak against this.

That was pretty much the situation with homosexuality a few decades back.

So, lets face it. Some guy wants to shag his donkey? It's not my problem; at least, not in any way that justifies imprisoning him for it.

Can anyone give me a non-religious, non-emotional reason to think otherwise, that is consistent with all the other acts we allow towards animals?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Seriously, you can shoot animals and eat them; you can force-feed them and slaughter them; you can cage them and harvest eggs and milk; you can do medical experiments on them; in some cases you can shoot them just because you feel like shooting them; and if you own one, you can (humanely) put it to death at your whim.

We do actually have laws against animal cruelty. And Jewish dietary laws demand humane slaughter. One argument against bestiality is the same as against human minors, the inability to give informed consent.

A goat may not want to have sex with Adak, but would be unable to adequately voices it's displeasure. On the other hand, most goats might love to have sex with Adak. He might be the rock star that all goats aspire to screw, with young goats scratching his picture on the floors of their stalls under the straw where their parents won't find it. But even when they mature, they would be as unable to acquiesce Adak's advances as their minority of brethren would be unable to voice their displeasure.

Placing some protections on animals that almost everyone acknowledges that we are allowed to slaughter and eat may seem inconsistent, but it is more of a protection for humans than it is for animals. Many serial killers start with animals. Think of cruelty to animals as a gateway drug to cruelty to humans. And sex with animals is considered cruelty to animals.

BTW, I should really apologize for using Adak as an example by insinuating his popularity with goats. Obviously this is not true. Goats have no affinity for Adak.



But his Q rating with cows and horses is absolutely off the charts.

[ZenGum]

You do make a sane point about cruelty.

That might apply to smaller animals like chickens, but surely not to donkeys. Have you seen the size of a donkey's wang? You think a human wang is going to hurt a lady donkey? HAH!
And even so, is this any crueller than things that are already legal, such as branding cattle, de-beaking hens, etc?

Informed consent? Do we require informed consent from racehorses?

Ability to refuse? Well, you've got me there. From now on, my position is that you're not allowed to shag any animal except horses, and even then, you must respect the principle that neigh means neigh.

[ZenGum]

Oh and on the gateway act theory, again, that's false.

Yes, most psychopaths who are cruel to humans began by being cruel to animals, true.

Most heroin users began with alcohol, but it does not follow that most alcohol users end up on heroin.

So, do most goat rapers end up a human rapers? I don't know, but I can't assume that it is so.

Besides, if having sex with goats is illegal, only criminals will have sex with goats, and I don't think the goats deserve that.

[BigV]

this thread has gotten a whole lot better since I visited last.

[Adak]

Good news!

Tim Scott, the Tea Party supported Republican Representative, will be taking over Jim DeMint's seat, representing South Carolina.

Governor Nikki Haley will make the official announcement, later this week.

So the female Republican governor, nominated the Tea party supported black Republican representative from the state, to become the only black Senator in the country.

Leaving the liberals who have never learned that the Republican party was created to fight slavery in the first place, saying "Huh?"

Congratulations, Senator Tim Scott!

[Adak]

Say a prayer for all the victims of the school shooting in Connecticut, please.

You can see the result of having a gun law to keep guns away from those with murderous intent. By law, the shooter couldn't have a gun in Connecticut (he was 1 year too young).

And where did the shooter go to do his killings? The gun free zone in Newtown, of course.

Gun free zones are magnets for people with (mass) murderous intent. They're evil, not stupid. They don't want people shooting back at them. The police will respond in 5 to 10 minutes (generally), but that's too late.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Adak

Say a prayer for all the victims of the school shooting in Connecticut, please.

You can see the result of having a gun law to keep guns away from those with murderous intent. By law, the shooter couldn't have a gun in Connecticut (he was 1 year too young).

And where did the shooter go to do his killings? The gun free zone in Newtown, of course.

Gun free zones are magnets for people with (mass) murderous intent. They're evil, not stupid. They don't want people shooting back at them. The police will respond in 5 to 10 minutes (generally), but that's too late.

You know, we've got the "guns don't kill people..." thread for that. Your contributions would be more effective if you put them in relevant threads.

Peace, out.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Adak

Good news!

Tim Scott, the Tea Party supported Republican Representative, will be taking over Jim DeMint's seat, representing South Carolina.

But what's his position on bestiality?





yeah, I know ... doggy.

[Adak]

If the Democrats bring it up - as they have this week - then my comments on it will be in this thread.

On the fiscal cliff negotiations, we appear to have made some progress. No specifics being given yet, however. Probably just as well, I'm not close enough to the Pepto Bismol to readily tolerate the lack of actual spending cuts.