Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is obviously going to fail so I feel free to make a conscience vote.
    The vote isn't the important part, the debate is. Do you see any advantage to this bill or do you see only disadvantage? However big or small the health issues may be there is really no positives to be gained from this change as far as I can see.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    There is a difference between animals and a child, your argument is pretty much the same as people who oppose gay marriage oh but what about the paedophiles
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    True. We cannot know for sure, but we can look at some examples of animals interacting with humans. Dolphins have been observed attempting to initiate sex with other animals, including humans. It's hard to discover conclusively whether or not a sex act is consensual, especially when we cannot communicate with the 'victim', however, it's hard to argue that in all cases of bestiality are nonconsensual when some animals will willingly engage in sexual acts with humans. In these cases what business does the state have in the issue?

    * I should point at that I am still against this bill, just playing devil's advocate for a bit
    All right. Animals can't grant consent, neither can sex dolls. Animals -can- feel pain and diseases can be spread very easily by this.

    So I am going to vote my conscience, which also happens to coincide with my 'It's really yucky' squick feeling.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    The vote isn't the important part, the debate is. Do you see any advantage to this bill or do you see only disadvantage? However big or small the health issues may be there is really no positives to be gained from this change as far as I can see.
    The positive is that I'm generally of the opinion that people should be able to **** whoever or whatever they want.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    The vote isn't the important part, the debate is. Do you see any advantage to this bill or do you see only disadvantage? However big or small the health issues may be there is really no positives to be gained from this change as far as I can see.
    Freedom is its own positive.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Freedom is its own positive.
    I can see that argument but this isn't a freedom society is calling for and it does introduce some problems. The main one I see is the increased risk of bacterial mutation.

    Besides that there is also the issue of this bill being too broad. You can argue that there is no issue, for example, with a human male having sex with a horse that he owns. Where would the law stand however on a man who badly injures or kills an animal in this manner? Does the ownership of the animal in question effect the answer to this?

    Ultimately given the health implications and the facts that society as a whole doesn't see a need for this change which has led to a lack of debate on the subject at this time I would have to vote against this is I had the power to do so. I would not be against it under different circumstances and perhaps I'm just feeling more conservative as I get older but I don't see the point in change for changes sake, especially when coupled with a poorly thought through bill and the health issues it potentially causes.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Even as a Welshman, no.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Even as a Welshman, no.
    PRSOM
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    No, I do not agree with allowing individuals to have sex with kittens because those are the only pussies they can get.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    A one year old is likely to be hurt in the process and it will have an impact on them going forwards due to us being social animals. It will also effect those who care about the child. This is not even similar to my example of having sex with a willing animal.
    There would be no forward mental impact because children don't have a sense of self until they are about two so even if they remembered it they wouldn't remember it happening to them.
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Human rights are called HUMAN rights for a reason - they apply to men and women, not beasts.
    Why should they just apply to humans?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    There would be no forward mental impact because children don't have a sense of self until they are about two so even if they remembered it they wouldn't remember it happening to them.

    Why should they just apply to humans?
    The impact on the child in that case comes more from the other effects on their life (family breakdown, social scarring and emotional damage that manifests later in life once they understand what happened) and from physical damage at that age.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    The impact on the child in that case comes more from the other effects on their life (family breakdown, social scarring and emotional damage that manifests later in life once they understand what happened) and from physical damage at that age.
    All of which, other than realising what happened, can be argued for San Animal.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The positive is that I'm generally of the opinion that people should be able to **** whoever or whatever they want.
    So you agree with necrophilia?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Aph)
    All of which, other than realising what happened, can be argued for San Animal.
    Perhaps that argument could be made for highly social animals, but I think you would struggle to make it strongly even for humans until relatively recently. Our society puts a lot of stigma on anything taboo when it comes to sexuality. The same behaviour is completely lacking from at least most other species.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    There would be no forward mental impact because children don't have a sense of self until they are about two so even if they remembered it they wouldn't remember it happening to them.

    Why should they just apply to humans?
    Because humans are inherently rational (with the exception of the unsafe bridge) and therefore they have natural rights, this does not apply to irrational beasts.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    So you agree with necrophilia?
    Enjoy that bill when it goes up tonight

    I'm taking bets on what will have the worse reaction; this or that.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Why on Earth are you guys discussing this:lolwut:
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Because humans are inherently rational (with the exception of the unsafe bridge) and therefore they have natural rights, this does not apply to irrational beasts.
    A) Humans aren't rationional
    B) Should computer's have rights then?
    C) There are no "natural rights"
    D) You didn't justify any of that just made a statement with no logical basis.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Because humans are inherently rational (with the exception of the unsafe bridge) and therefore they have natural rights, this does not apply to irrational beasts.
    Animals aren't rational? I think you will find they are. They may not be very intelligent compared to humans but they are clearly rational, and many can solve complex problems.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    A) Humans aren't rationional
    B) Should computer's have rights then?
    C) There are no "natural rights"
    D) You didn't justify any of that just made a statement with no logical basis.
    Animals and computers cannot enter into a social contract, therefore they do not have natural rights.

    Sentience AND rationality are both prerequisites, animals lack rationality, computers lack sentience,

    Natural rights are justified by utility.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Animals and computers cannot enter into a social contract, therefore they do not have natural rights.

    Sentience AND rationality are both prerequisites, animals lack rationality, computers lack sentience,

    Natural rights are justified by utility.
    We have already established that animals are rational. They also enter into social contracts, as a look at any pet dog or cat or any beehive will tell you. You haven't thought this through have you?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 16, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.