Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, does it change that you accused some traditionally leftist countries of having legal bestiality while the right wing america didn't.

And it was actually the other way around.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Both those countries have laws against bestiality. In Denmarks case it was due to people visiting their country to abuse the fact it wasn't outlawed.

No laws against it in Hawaii, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey (pending bill to outlaw), New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Usually, there's other laws on the books that prohibits that... but, yeah, it's a weird artifacts of our laws.

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

 whembly wrote:

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

Reminds me of the myth that's its legal to shoot a Welshman after dark in Chester. Except of course apparently the Mormon* thing wasn't a myth.

*Mormons exist

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

Reminds me of the myth that's its legal to shoot a Welshman after dark in Chester. Except of course apparently the Mormon* thing wasn't a myth.

*Mormons exist

Well... I haven't checked, but I'm sure the Feds have/could convict them.

I'm just pointing out that there are weird idiosyncrasies between the 50 states laws to our one Federal laws.

Yeah that's a weird one. When I was looking at the animal thing the text I'm given is

"Laws against zoophilia and sodomy in the United States are largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no federal law which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals."

I had to look up why the District of Columbia was special... hah.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Fun fact: Until the early 1970s, it was legal to kill/murder mormons in Missouri.

Reminds me of the myth that's its legal to shoot a Welshman after dark in Chester. Except of course apparently the Mormon* thing wasn't a myth.

*Mormons exist

Well... I haven't checked, but I'm sure the Feds have/could convict them.

I'm just pointing out that there are weird idiosyncrasies between the 50 states laws to our one Federal laws.

Hehe this reminds me of the super weird out of date laws that were never really put into practice. I think there was one where if you stole somebody's horse or sheep you would get death by hanging.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah that's a weird one. When I was looking at the animal thing the text I'm given is

"Laws against zoophilia and sodomy in the United States are largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no federal law which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals."

I know we're getting offtrack here... but I think this is a salient point.

It shouldn't matter where the law arises... Federalism isn't necessarily a top-down mechanism to push laws on all 50 states. Our U.S. constitution expressly states what is the Federal government's domain and what should be left to the states (ie, 10th Amendment).

Doesn't always work like that though as many see the Federal Government a means to control the rest of the 50 states.

*shrugs*

Anyhoo... back on topic? I don't necessarily buy that we're "soft"... it's just that we *allow* these types of expression, and in some circle encourage it.

Push to shove, I'd say we're the sleeping giant. Don't wake that giant up... as Japan and Taliban discovered...

I wont even begin to discuss about that with you as I know feth all about federal and state law and all that.

I was merely saying that there's no overarching Federal law against it, and that quite a few states allow it.

And enough of that tangent.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Yeah that's a weird one. When I was looking at the animal thing the text I'm given is

"Laws against zoophilia and sodomy in the United States are largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces. There is no federal law which explicitly prohibits sex between humans and animals."

Anyhoo... back on topic? I don't necessarily buy that we're "soft"... it's just that we *allow* these types of expression, and in some circle encourage it.

Push to shove, I'd say we're the sleeping giant. Don't wake that giant up... as Japan and Taliban discovered...

It really just depends how extreme somebody is with some of this. I don't think people should withhold a job due to gender, race or religion or similar. However some people that get super offended over jokes esp. ones that have nothing to do with offending them tend to bother me. It doesn't really hurt anybody. I mean my mom was jewish and I find the whole 'get everything on discount' joke to be funny. Seriously even Drawn Together had a very funny joke about that. Can you believe I'm withholding saying the joke for fear I'd get in trouble about it even though my mom was jewish and i should have more right than most to be offended by it? I even laugh at Jewish people not being tough teasing that some do.

"You call these bagels."

'Woah I'm glad he's on our side.'

That said as far as humor is concerned you gotta draw the line with death and rape and similar. Also the intention behind the joke is ok as long as it is to joke and not to hurt (even teasing is ok as long as it's understood by those involved). There's a lot of specifics some tend to forget or don't know about. Then again different people and different views.

I actually find the idea that some words should never be spoken, to be a disagreeable one.

Given the right context, pretty much any word should be allowed to be said.

For example, the n-word as it is (I understand it's not allowed on here and I'm fine with that).

Some people found it offensive when discussed in the context of a historical lesson, or in a book written from past times. I understand they may find it offensive, but I also disagree with them then saying it shouldn't be allowed, given the context it was said.

I also understand these were isolated incidents I may be mis-remembering.

Also, with free speech, a lot of people use it to be rude whilst claiming they're not being rude. I'm ok with people being rude, that's life. Just be fething honest and accept you're being rude.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Every country has its problems. America has soft college kids. Canada created Justin Bieber. Australia "gave" us the unfortunate case of Iggy Azaelia. And Australians, you should all be ashamed for loosing her upon the world.

Also, isn't this thread a straight up attack on America? Kinda surprised rule #1 isn't being called into question on a thread that basically says "America, you're all wusses". Can we get the lock-happy mod up in here?

But Australia also gave us Galantis, America did give us Halsey, and Canada did give us maple syrup ;.;

I mean Halsey....


But yes I am not surprised soft college students in this generation isn't new, they are hyper sensentive and ultra liberal, its a social change so yeah. I am not really surprised I go to college so I do see it quite often especially identity politics etc.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I actually find the idea that some words should never be spoken, to be a disagreeable one.

Given the right context, pretty much any word should be allowed to be said.

For example, the n-word as it is (I understand it's not allowed on here and I'm fine with that).

Some people found it offensive when discussed in the context of a historical lesson, or in a book written from past times. I understand they may find it offensive, but I also disagree with them then saying it shouldn't be allowed, given the context it was said.

I also understand these were isolated incidents I may be mis-remembering.

Also, with free speech, a lot of people use it to be rude whilst claiming they're not being rude. I'm ok with people being rude, that's life. Just be fething honest and accept you're being rude.

I suppose my issue with people getting offended is less about them getting offended or taking action so much as trying to take official and political action so that it never happens again. If somebody is offensive and you don't like it then just consider them an offensive jerk that will reap the seeds they're sowing for themselves. I mean I don't even mind if somebody punched me in my face so long as it wasn't politically and universally condemned.

Oh also people that feel the need to see offended material where it might not exist. Instead of jumping on the 'you're an offensive jerk!' bandwagon think about who is saying what and what the case may be. A child saying a curse word is bad sure but they don't realize it's bad and mean nothing by it. Treating them like crap for the kids having no ill intentions is just messed up.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because it's trying to equate the acceptance homosexuality with a theoretical acceptance of pedophilia and zoophilia, ignoring entirely this little thing called consent, it's insane because you're trying to link "the left" to championing the causes of pedophilia and zoophilia and it's insane because it's a blatant slippery slope argument (you know, like I said last post).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country. Seriously for the most part most big politically left issues have won. Unless there's a change of pace for all our countries this will probably become a reality. As right wing as the usa is considered in 100 years I probably wouldn't be surprised if every country (including the USA) made bestiality legal (something that to my knowledge is legal in Denmark and Netherlands). You might laugh at the idea but nothing ever happens all at once but slowly over time. Not that I have issue with people that are gay or black but a hundred years ago people took more issue to them. Who even knows? Maybe pedophilia would be legal in 100 years. I sure hope not though.

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is starting to get dangerously close to critical mass. How do you post such a flawless example of a slippery slope argument without stopping for a second and reflecting over wether the argument you're making is insane or not?

THIS is why liberal arts aren't worthless, and why the world could do with more of it.

How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because it's trying to equate the acceptance homosexuality with a theoretical acceptance of pedophilia and zoophilia, ignoring entirely this little thing called consent, it's insane because you're trying to link "the left" to championing the causes of pedophilia and zoophilia and it's insane because it's a blatant slippery slope argument (you know, like I said last post).

In a couple hundred years, people might think your kind of thinking is insane and may not even say consent is a valid thing. All it will take is time.

Well homosexuality was about as accepted 100 years ago as pedophilia is now so umm yeah I can in some cases compare. To my knowledge pedophilia wasn't always looked upon the way it is today. I don't even think this is a case of dudes marrying fairly young girls either. Time and place matter a lot in these cases. Different cultures can definitely feel weird to each other.

To be fair, you can compare heterosexuality and bestiality too.

I didn't say it'd be a good comparison though.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Well homosexuality was about as accepted 100 years ago as pedophilia is now so umm yeah I can in some cases compare.

I think you'll need to be a lot more specific to actually make a point here. I'm not going to bother trying to refute your argument, as it's so vague I'm not sure what you mean.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, you can compare heterosexuality and bestiality too.

I didn't say it'd be a good comparison though.

Not disagreeing they're still sex. I'm just saying there were some small similarities.

Besides there are pedophiles that don't act on their impulses. Saying somebody is bad for being born a certain way is messed up. I find it rather odd people are disgusted to compare the good gay people with the horrible pedophilic people. They were both born a way they didn't choose. That said one can have sex in a way which they are somewhat discriminated with and the other will be entirely hated if they have sex their preferred way. But hey making an entire group out to be evil without giving them alternatives to their problems is totally fine. I mean it's not like we can give them a choice to choose childish women or maybe take something to stop their urges from making them do something that'd result in prison time. Keep in mind even this is comparable to some gay people taking something that sterilized them or similar way back when. So yeah it's yet another comparison.

------

Ok so gay people were discriminated against and if they acted on desires would get prison time. Pedophiles do now as well. They weren't given many options either (no marriage, jobs may be being taken away, etc.). Nobody would knowingly want to be around a pedophile for the most part even if they haven't committed an actual crime yet. They were both born liking what they do.

I'm not saying pedophilia is right and I think it's wrong but I think they need better options for their lives so they can live normal lives without fearing they'd do some such evil.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm sure that if you looked for 13 wild crazy things that happened in any given year, you'd find them and it still wouldn't mean anything close to what you're trying to suggest

And as I said, all of those things did happen, so drop the cheap shots and maybe respond. It's difficult, I know, but give it a try.

Hmm. That list sounds like an average week at my University. I went looooooooong before the new media could pick up these silly stories and blow them all out of proportion. My point being the same as Mr. Cheap Shot's above: last year wasn't unusual in that these irritating things happened, but it was unusual in that these irritating things were picked up by new media and made into a story. This is just an (extreme) example of media bias. Was American "soft" back when I was in Uni (Reagan and Bush were in office)? I think many would dispute that assertion. But things really haven't changed much since then.

One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

On one hand I want to watch a single 24 hour block of FoxNews and write down every single "headline" to post as example of over-sensitive outrage culture. But then I would be watching FoxNews...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

Look back at my previous post that I edited.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Not disagreeing they're still sex. I'm just saying there were some small similarities.

Besides there are pedophiles that don't act on their impulses. Saying somebody is bad for being born a certain way is messed up. I find it rather odd people are disgusted to compare the good gay people with the horrible pedophilic people. They were both born a way they didn't choose. That said one can have sex in a way which they are somewhat discriminated with and the other will be entirely hated if they have sex their preferred way. But hey making an entire group out to be evil without giving them alternatives to their problems is totally fine. I mean it's not like we can give them a choice to choose childish women or maybe take something to stop their urges from making them do something that'd result in prison time. Keep in mind even this is comparable to some gay people taking something that sterilized them or similar way back when. So yeah it's yet another comparison.

There are superficial similarities.

As has been stated multiple time, Gay rights arose out two main trends in the 1960: Identity politics, and the sexual revolution. Prior to the 60's, recreational (meaning non-procreative) sex was seen as immoral and wrong. As the decade progressed, the idea that sex between consenting people was healthy, normal, and a good thing took root. Much of the earlier disgust at homosexuality was based on the idea that it was immoral and unhealthy. As time based, it became clear that there seems to be no social harm to homosexuality, nor any personal harm.

Pedophilia (and I'm using the term to mean attraction to prepubescent children) has enormous social harm. It's a bad thing for an adult to have sex with a child, at least the bulk of the time. Children at that age cannot possibly consent to sex.

The grey area in this is age of consent laws. Many of them are set unreasonably high, such that they end up criminalizing perfectly healthy teenage sexual behaviors. Maybe not ideal sexual behaviors, but a 16 year old can handle the issue of consent, at least roughly as well as many adults.

Many things that were considered perfectly normal centuries and in some cases mere decades ago are regarded with horror and disgust today. Decades and centuries into the future, many of the things we regard as normal today will in turn be regarded with disgust.

The age of consent has been subjected to a continuous downward trend over the last 50 years and will I think continue to fall, as kids grow ever more sexualised. I don't necessarily with it, but I think it will happen. Young teenage sexualisation is becoming normalized.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
How is what I said insane? I will admit it'd probably cause some complaints though.

To be fair I said if things continued on the same path. Sure you say it's insane now but in a hundred or 200 years anything might be possible.

It's insane because is has nothing to do with reality. The path that we're on right now is increasing acknowledgement that a person's choice of sex acts/partners/etc is their business as long as it's between consenting adults, and society should take a "hands off" approach to dealing with it. A reasonable prediction might be that, if we continue down the same path that led to gay marriage, we'll start to see increasing support for recognizing and accepting non-monogamous relationships. But it is NOT a reasonable prediction to suggest that the trend might lead to legalizing sex with animals and children because they are not capable of giving consent. There's a reason we laugh at this slippery-slope idiocy when it's used by right-wing religious fanatics as an argument against gay marriage.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
I mean my mom was jewish and I find the whole 'get everything on discount' joke to be funny.

The point you're missing is that you (usually) can't know if you're going to offend or upset someone until after it's too late. They might laugh, or they might be seriously hurt by it. Or they might do both, and pretend to think it's funny because they don't want to fight about it. So the right thing to do is to avoid that kind of "humor", and not declare to everyone that your need to let everyone know how funny you are is more important than the chance that you might hurt someone.

Also the intention behind the joke is ok as long as it is to joke and not to hurt (even teasing is ok as long as it's understood by those involved).

Intent is not magic. If I shoot you in the I don't think you're going to find it much consolation that I just thought it would be funny.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
@HBMC: You know the sad part man? The sad part is in the end the political left always wins in the long run or at least in my country.

Because the Left Wing in the average 'Western' country dominates the media and educational systems. Every new generation is going to be more left wing than the last.

...

It's all the fault of those notorious socialist media barons such as Rupert Murdoch.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
One takes actions against someone who cant even consent, the other takes actions with someone who can consent.

It's not really hard to see why one can condemn one and not the other.

I personally have respect and sympathy for a man who has urges to have sex with a child, and never acts on it.

Someone who does act on it? Not so much.

"Pedophilia is not a legal term,[8] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal in itself."

It's the act that is wrong, and people who have the urges need to be helped, both to let them live more fulfilling lives and to prevent them ruining others.

Consenting adult is the general term because consenting can mean anybody that agrees to it. I mean in the case of having sex with animals it also serves the same non-creative purpose that gay sex has and if they're able to have babies that could make them in a sense an adult.

Consenting can mean various many things. Currently it just fits into our current meaning (2 consenting people of adult age that are mentally capable of the decision so no alcohol in some cases). Saying one is about consent and the other isn't was fully going into the current consent rules. It's like saying 'it doesn't fit our current law written version of consent so it can never be'. That's the same kind of thinking in the early 20th century that'd say 2 gay people having sex can't legally consent because they don't meet the legal qualifications for the word.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Many things that were considered perfectly normal centuries and in some cases mere decades ago are regarded with horror and disgust today. Decades and centuries into the future, many of the things we regard as normal today will in turn be regarded with disgust.

Even more so, the rationale for some of the things we prohibit change.

Look at rape. For millennia, rape has been prohibited, but until somewhat recently it was basically treated the same way as cattle rustling. Raping a married woman was trespass against her husband, while raping a non-married woman lowered her market value for her father. This is one reason older rape laws didn't even consider rape of men, and until quite recently marital rape was completely legal.

Only in the last few decades has the idea of bodily autonomy, and the rights of a woman to control her own sexual life, emerged.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
That said one can have sex in a way which they are somewhat discriminated with and the other will be entirely hated if they have sex their preferred way.

Well yes, that's what happens when your "preferred way of having sex" is rape. FFS, why is this so complicated for you?