Sex With Dead Deer is NOT Bestiality

[flipside]

Saves money on dating I s'pose.

[SlowwHand]

The people with aids are required by law to disclose the fact.
A dead deer is incapable of disclosing the info.

[Bill3000]

Ok, go **** a deer, or a duck, then. Enjoy.

Defending the decriminalization of various consentual paraphilias is quite different than having those paraphilias. I'm not a necrophiliac, nor a zoophiliac, nor a pedophile. The last accusation is a quite common one by my immature friends because I think lolicon should not be illegal. Nor does this mean that I don't think that the people who have various peoples have mental problems. What it does mean is that I believe that the criminalization of various sexual activities should be based on rationality, not disgust and moral hysteria. If it doesn't harm a consentual partner, nor does it cause actual harm to society, then it need not be illegal.

How is ****ing a dead animal carcas on the side of the road different than using a vibrator? WHAT? How can that be a serious question?

A dead animal is an inanimate object. Same with a vibrator. Both are, uh, used for pleasure, the first with a paraphilia.

On a serious note, there is a public safety factor here. It is believed that AIDS was transmitted to humans from some kind of monkey or ape. Want to guess how that happened...

Well, that's quite a different argument from saying "Why the **** are you defending this guy?" Glad to see at least one actual issue being raised.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by flipside
Saves money on dating I s'pose.

Well you gotta pay for the hunting license. But I suppose the bag and tag em routine is about the same.

[SlowwHand]

Bill, to you there's been one point made.
That doesn't make you right, so don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back just yet.

[senowen]

Originally posted by Lorizael

So then humans should not be allowed to have sex with humans who have AIDS?

Humans have human rights. And Americans have a right to privacy (at least for now), so you can't really regulate human sexual activity with other consenting adults (although that doesn't stop right wing yahoos from trying). But if you looked at it as a strictly health issue, humans probably should not be allowed to have sex with humans who have AIDS. That being said, animals do not have a right to privacy (though left wing yahoos would probably like to creat such a right), and so regulating animal sexual activity should not be a problem.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The people with aids are required by law to disclose the fact.
A dead deer is incapable of disclosing the info.

A good point. But again, people are allowed to inflict harm on themselves within the law. Is giving yourself a disease lawful? To be honest, I don't really know.

If not, the solution to this then becomes to require that sex with animals be done in a safe, sanitary, and healthy way.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by senowen


That being said, animals do not have a right to privacy (though left wing yahoos would probably like to creat such a right), and so regulating animal sexual activity should not be a problem.

That would put all those peeping Tom zoologists out of business. Can't be messing with the animals right to privacy there Jane Goodall. Don't come a knockin when the tree tops are rockin.

[flipside]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



Well you gotta pay for the hunting license. But I suppose the bag and tag em routine is about the same.

Pretty much. Brings a whole new meaning to "pull a pig" night though.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bill, to you there's been one point made.
That doesn't make you right, so don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back just yet.

I never said otherwise. Nor do I actually expect to win this debate.

That being said, animals do not have a right to privacy (though left wing yahoos would probably like to creat such a right), and so regulating animal sexual activity should not be a problem.

I don't know. We have laws against animal cruelty, and that hints to the fact that animals do have some rights. I'm pretty sure that, for example, most people would at least want to believe that pets have rights. Heck, the most common argument against beastiality is the fact that legal sex is consentual, and an animal cannot consent; ergo animals must have some rights in the first place to make consent an issue in the first place, over, say, a vibrator, or a phone plugged in the you-know-what. But then again, you talked about a right to privacy, not animal rights, but eh.

Of course, this doesn't say anything about whether or not an animal carcass has rights, but whatever.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by senowen
That being said, animals do not have a right to privacy (though left wing yahoos would probably like to creat such a right), and so regulating animal sexual activity should not be a problem.

Okay then. You can create law regulating how animals have sex with other animals.

But why create law regulating how humans have sex with things that aren't human?

[Elok]

I would be against making this legal, largely on the grounds of public health. Screwing carcasses is just unsanitary, especially the carcasses of wild animals which haven't been embalmed or anything.

Also, someone could have eaten that deer, dagnabit. Venison is yummy.

[senowen]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Okay then. You can create law regulating how animals have sex with other animals.
But why create law regulating how humans have sex with things that aren't human?

I personally couldn't care less what kind of sexual activity people want to pursue with inanimate objects, generally. However, there is a quantitative difference between sexual activity between an object that can only harm oneself (say for instance a large vibrator) and sexual activity that can potentially harm all of humanity.

Originally posted by Bill3000
We have laws against animal cruelty, and that hints to the fact that animals do have some rights. I'm pretty sure that, for example, most people would at least want to believe that pets have rights. Heck, the most common argument against beastiality is the fact that legal sex is consentual, and an animal cannot consent; ergo animals must have some rights in the first place to make consent an issue in the first place, over, say, a vibrator, or a phone plugged in the you-know-what. But then again, you talked about a right to privacy, not animal rights, but eh.

Animal rights are a tricky subject. But there is a difference between a right not to be subjected to torture, random injuries or sexual violence and a right to privacy in personal affairs.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Elok
I would be against making this legal, largely on the grounds of public health. Screwing carcasses is just unsanitary, especially the carcasses of wild animals which haven't been embalmed or anything.

Then regulate!

Also, someone could have eaten that deer, dagnabit. Venison is yummy.

You could say that about any animal that is hunted for sport and not food.

Originally posted by senowen I personally couldn't care less what kind of sexual activity people want to pursue with inanimate objects, generally. However, there is a quantitative difference between sexual activity between an object that can only harm oneself (say for instance a large vibrator) and sexual activity that can potentially harm all of humanity.

All of humanity? Goodness gracious me, I didn't know we were talking about all of humanity!

A zoologist that goes out into the wild, or an anthropologist that investigates some primitive (or whatever the PC term is) tribe could potentially contract some horrible new disease that could infect and destroy all of humanity. Should these activities be illegal too? Or perhaps just regulated for safety?

[SlowwHand]

I never knew there were so many pet pounders at ACS.