SC man gets 3 years in prison for sex with horse

[Squonk]

Well, there is the - admittedly somewhat iffy in this situation - matter of consent to consider. If an animal can't consent, you can't nail it.

I don't think we're asking animals for consent when we buy them, ride on them, make them carry stuff, keep them in cages, slaughter them, eat them, feed them to other animals etc.

 

[Lord Baal]

I don't think we're asking animals for consent when we buy them, ride on them, make them carry stuff, keep them in cages, slaughter them, eat them, feed them to other animals etc.

I answered that quite a while ago. If you're going to quote me, please keep up with the current conversation.

 

[Squonk]

I don't think we should eat or skin or wear them either, except out of necessity. I can't imagine a situation where banging a horse would be necessary.

We don't have to eat animals. We do, because they're tasty. We could all be vegetarians.
We don't have to skin animals either. Even cavement didn't have to - they could well stay in the warmer climate and not move to the north or whatever. Today, we don't need animal skins for sure. We don't need animals as pets. Today, we don't need animals for transport either, and even centuries ago humans didn't necessary need them - they used them for their comfort, not for their necessiry.

Anyway, you don't feel a need for banging a horse. But this guy visibly felt such need. His natural urges are flawed, but he feels attraction towards horses. And apparently towards this particular horse, Sugar. And he had no other way to quench his thirst for a mare vagina then to indulge in it, while you have many ways to fulfill your need for food and for warmth.

 

[Lord Baal]

We don't have to eat animals. We do, because they're tasty. We could all be vegetarians.
We don't have to skin animals either. Even cavement didn't have to - they could well stay in the warmer climate and not move to the north or whatever. Today, we don't need animal skins for sure. We don't need animals as pets. Today, we don't need animals for transport either, and even centuries ago humans didn't necessary need them - they used them for their comfort, not for their necessiry.

Anyway, you don't feel a need for banging a horse. But this guy visibly felt such need. His natural urges are flawed, but he feels attraction towards horses. And apparently towards this particular horse, Sugar. And he had no other way to quench his thirst for a mare vagina then to indulge in it, while you have many ways to fulfill your need for food and for warmth.

This isn't an argument. Cavemen were less advanced than us, and couldn't really make rational decisions about skinning and eating animals. They acted on instinct, and when they became more intelligent, they simply kept doing what they'd always done, they just did it more efficiently. It wasn't until recently that we achieved the capability to forgo killing or exploiting animals for any purpose without having Turkish hordes on horseback kill us all, and eat our sacred cattle. just because we've done something in the past, does not mean we need to do it now, nor does the fact that we do something make it right to do.

Nor does simply feeling an urge to do something make it necessary to do so. I feel an urge to dive off a bridge everyday, just to see what would happen, but I control my impulses. Likewise, I felt the urge to give a cute girl with a great arse a squeeze on said arse at the bookstore today, but I contented myself with a nice long perve (which I'm pretty sure I was caught doing). I did this, because I am a grown human being, with the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, and therefore the capacity to control my impulses. This guy also possessed those capacities, and simply chose not to use them. That doesn't make what he did necessary, just a sign of stupidity.

 

[Kyriakos]

This isn't an argument. Cavemen were less advanced than us, and couldn't really make rational decisions about skinning and eating animals. They acted on instinct, and when they became more intelligent, they simply kept doing what they'd always done, they just did it more efficiently. It wasn't until recently that we achieved the capability to forgo killing or exploiting animals for any purpose without having Turkish hordes on horseback kill us all, and eat our sacred cattle. just because we've done something in the past, does not mean we need to do it now, nor does the fact that we do something make it right to do.

Nor does simply feeling an urge to do something make it necessary to do so. I feel an urge to dive off a bridge everyday, just to see what would happen, but I control my impulses. Likewise, I felt the urge to give a cute girl with a great arse a squeeze on said arse at the bookstore today, but I contented myself with a nice long perve (which I'm pretty sure I was caught doing). I did this, because I am a grown human being, with the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, and therefore the capacity to control my impulses. This guy also possessed those capacities, and simply chose not to use them. That doesn't make what he did necessary, just a sign of stupidity.

First you claimed that it doesnt matter if something is necessary to someone, it matters only if it actually would be deemed necessary by others. Then you moved on to claim that it was not actually necessary for him either... You are in no position to judge what to another may seem necessary though. For all you know this person had an entirely different state of mind than anything you have experienced, a little imagination might help Besides it is merely a horse, if i felt the need to cut off the head of an ant, nomatter if i could control it or not i would not really mind doing that, since it is ultimately insignificant.

 

[Lord Baal]

First you claimed that it doesnt matter if something is necessary to someone, it matters only if it actually would be deemed necessary by others. Then you moved on to claim that it was not actually necessary for him either... You are in no position to judge what to another may seem necessary though. For all you know this person had an entirely different state of mind than anything you have experienced, a little imagination might help Besides it is merely a horse, if i felt the need to cut off the head of an ant, nomatter if i could control it or not i would not really mind doing that, since it is ultimately insignificant.

No, I'm arguing that it wasn't necessary, whether it seemed so to him or not. I'm a moral relativist in a history sense, so I certainly won't judge people in the past for doing things that would be considered immoral now - except when they were also immoral then, like the Holocaust - but this guy broke the law, acted immorally in the modern sense, and did something entirely unnecessary. Unless he needs to bang a horse to keep Nazi UFOs away, or something.

 

[Squonk]

This isn't an argument. Cavemen were less advanced than us, and couldn't really make rational decisions about skinning and eating animals.

This guy apparently couldn't make rational decisions as well.
Anyway, if skinning etc was indeed necessary, it would be a rational decision, wouldn't it. But you admit it was not.

They acted on instinct,

Just like this guy

and when they became more intelligent, they simply kept doing what they'd always done, they just did it more efficiently. It wasn't until recently that we achieved the capability to forgo killing or exploiting animals for any purpose without having Turkish hordes on horseback kill us all, and eat our sacred cattle. just because we've done something in the past, does not mean we need to do it now, nor does the fact that we do something make it right to do.

So you do believe eating flesh and skinning should be banned?

This guy also possessed those capacities,

Not necessarily

and simply chose not to use them. That doesn't make what he did necessary, just a sign of stupidity.

If he's so stupid he can't control his urges, how can you judge him the same way you'd judge yourself

Why do you think all humans are on the same level of cultural evolution anyway

You omitted a couple questions. I've mentioned not only cavemen, but also modern people. And not only skinning and eating flesh, but also using saddle animals, having pets, keeping chicken for eggs, riding horseback, having them in zoos, taking away their natural habitats, going into forests for whatever reason etc. All that isn't necessary for us, and is or can be more traumatic for an animal than a shag this man offered to his sweet Sugar. If we want to treat animals on the same level as humans, lets be consistent with that and acknowledge their right to posess land, as well reparations for the ones we've already stolen from them. We should all just take our cats and release them from the wild, and prosecute with burglary anyone who would enter an area inhabited by animals. The same should apply to ants, cockroaches etc: if they happen to live in our house, we should sue them, but not exterminate them unnecessarily.

 

[Lord Baal]

This guy apparently couldn't make rational decisions as well.
Anyway, if skinning etc was indeed necessary, it would be a rational decision, wouldn't it. But you admit it was not.

Huh? Rationality and necessity aren't the same thing dude.

Just like this guy[/qutoe]
Now we have the capacity to overcome our impulses. So did this guy, as he proved on the many occasions he didn't screw the horse.

So you do believe eating flesh and skinning should be banned?

Not banned outright yet, but certainly phased out. If we banned it tomorrow, our society couldn't handle it.

Not necessarily

Yeah, he did. He's a rational human being, he can make his own decisions and control his own impulses. Children can do that.

If he's so stupid he can't control his urges, how can you judge him the same way you'd judge yourself

So I shouldn't hold stupid people accountable for their actions?

Why do you think all humans are on the same level of cultural evolution anyway

I don't.

You omitted a couple questions. I've mentioned not only cavemen, but also modern people. And not only skinning and eating flesh, but also using saddle animals, having pets, keeping chicken for eggs, riding horseback, having them in zoos, taking away their natural habitats, going into forests for whatever reason etc. All that isn't necessary for us, and is or can be more traumatic for an animal than a shag this man offered to his sweet Sugar. If we want to treat animals on the same level as humans, lets be consistent with that and acknowledge their right to posess land, as well reparations for the ones we've already stolen from them. We should all just take our cats and release them from the wild, and prosecute with burglary anyone who would enter an area inhabited by animals. The same should apply to ants, cockroaches etc: if they happen to live in our house, we should sue them, but not exterminate them unnecessarily.

Animals can't be treated the same as humans, since they're not human. Don't be an ass. We should, however, treat them humanely.

 

[Squonk]

Huh? Rationality and necessity aren't the same thing dude.

To take care of one's necessities is a rational choice.

Now we have the capacity to overcome our impulses. So did this guy, as he proved on the many occasions he didn't screw the horse.

Some people do, some don't.

Not banned outright yet, but certainly phased out. If we banned it tomorrow, our society couldn't handle it.

So it's OK to kill an animal, make it carry weights or enslave it, but to make love to it is an offence? Indeed, logical.

Yeah, he did. He's a rational human being, he can make his own decisions and control his own impulses. Children can do that.

Not everyone can. You weren't in his situation, so how can you tell?

So I shouldn't hold stupid people accountable for their actions?

you should treat them with more understanding.

I don't.

yes you do. You think people some centuries ago weren't ready for something, but you think all people today are. You treat society as a unit, while it is a mass of individuals.

Animals can't be treated the same as humans, since they're not human. Don't be an ass. We should, however, treat them humanely.

how come making love to a horse is less humane than riding on its back or eating it?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So it's OK to kill an animal, make it carry weights or enslave it, but to make love to it is an offence? Indeed, logical.

[...]

how come making love to a horse is less humane than riding on its back or eating it?

Make love to it. Well, that's one way to describe it.

In the immortal words of Beyonce

Cause if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that *he* want it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it


(2x) Wuh Uh Oh Uh Uh Oh Uh Oh Oh Uh Uh Oh

If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
Don't be mad once you see that he want it
If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it

 

[Kyriakos]

Actually reading those lyrics must have been more cruel than what the horse experienced.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Be glad I decided against posting the (gawdawfull) clip. People would have let me finish but ....