Agreement... I agree because it is a bad thing for people to do. And even if it legal, it is against the Law so that if they do watch pornography, the are breaking the Law. I also think it should be illegal because in the Bible it says, PORN IS BAD!
Disagree... I disagree because sometimes pornography is good. For example, when you are at a Sperm Bank, where do you think the sperm came from? You probably would suggest that the male used pornography to masturbate causing the sperm to come out. So, pornography could be used for a good thing.
The article you posted was pretty cool; sadly, I am not one of the people you would be referring to that would understand the language, so I had to make due.
It's a bit of a slippery slope. Even in cases where an animal isn't physically abused, many of the larger animals that we interact with are quite intelligent. I've seen pets walking around moping, or depressed. Unfortunately, because of the barrier with a higher level of intellgence, and the language barrier, there's no means with which we can actually communicate with an animal, and accurately determine if any emotional abuse has occured with the animal.
So.
That all leaves me in a little bit of a tricky position. Is it worth writing laws about? I'd say probably not. How on Earth do you enforce something like that anyway? It's definitely not as if people would be doing that in public, and I'm *sure* that in countries where it is explicitly illegal, people still do it anyway, because there's not really a way to find out & they're not likely to openly admit it. If you pass a law that you have no real way to determine if it's being broken past putting cameras in people's homes, and subsequently, no way to enforce it - there's no point in having the law in the first place.
Beyond that; I place a much higher value on a human's life and the quality of a human's life then I do on animals. I'm not *for* animal cruelty, but I put them a little lower down the priority ladder. I'm definitely for animal testing - I happen to think science is something hugely beneficial. Besides, what are you doing when you get a pet? If you listen to P.E.T.A. (which I don't, because they're crazy) you're essentially holding an animal as a slave because you want either by yourself or those living with you to be happier because of the presence of an animal.
One can enforce zoophilia laws by taking down sites containing the stuff.
To answer the base question, ''is watching animal porn ok?'' as this thread's main focus is after all pornography.
If we assume everything else else as given. Let us completely forget the morals and consequences of steps in the chain before the step of the actual watching of animal porn. Let's completely focus on the sole watching of the video. We're assuming nothing else happens, purely the watching of this video. Taking that as a given, without arguing the wrongness of it all, I can now freely answer the question.
''Is watching animal porn ok?''
Of course it is. As is playing a game where you are being told assassinating American Presidents is a good thing. As is hearing a racist radio program asking you to kill every black person on the planet. You are not doing anything wrong when watching or listening to something that is supposed to be illegal, unless having the content itself is assumed as illegal. It is, however, illegal to act upon those games/radio programs/movies.
But can we honestly assume that every single step before the watching of animal porn has been completed in a proper and legal way? How do you know?
But can we honestly assume that every single step before the watching of animal porn has been completed in a proper and legal way? How do you know?
You never do, but you don't really with any kind of porn. Or other things, btw.
Oh, btw... Tangential, I'm just curious on your stance...
Insect zoophilia. Would you care about the rights of little worms made to crawl down a urethra because the guy got pleasure from it (at the potential risk of choking the little fellas)? Or if someone found it extremely hot to prod their appendage into an ant hill, destroying their cocoons and getting masochistic pleasure from the bites?
I actually detest how animal rights vs. human rights are defined today... But meh, this thread is not the place to discuss that.
You never do, but you don't really with any kind of porn. Or other things, btw.
There are rules and regulations surrounding porn. It's a pretty mainstream industry and the larger companies would not want to risk losing their rights to produce and distribute their material by doing things illegally.
The obstruction of informed consent with regards to animals is in my mind unjustifiable if it is purely for someone's pleasure, and that goes for insect zoophilia too. Killing 1 worm or wrecking 1 ants nest won't have a disatsrous effect on anyone, but as a matter of principle it's unnacceptable.
There are rules and regulations surrounding porn. It's a pretty mainstream industry and the larger companies would not want to risk losing their rights to produce and distribute their material by doing things illegally.
My point: You never know. You may know that there are these and those laws, but you don't know that they complied to them while recording. You can't know it.
Killing 1 worm or wrecking 1 ants nest won't have a disatsrous effect on anyone
Counting insects as no one?
Oh, other thing. Porn vids of animal-on-animal action. Someone setting up a good scene for recording it. No issue, then, since the animals give instinctual consent to each other?
My point: You never know. You may know that there are these and those laws, but you don't know that they complied to them while recording. You can't know it.
By that logic you can't trust anything. In practice those rules are enforced, at least much more so than they ever could be in the animal industry.
Counting insects as no one?
Yep. They aren't people. I was making the point that animal porn does not affect people in a direct manner, but on principle, it is contrary to basic pronographic law ie. informed consent.
Oh, other thing. Porn vids of animal-on-animal action. Someone setting up a good scene for recording it. No issue, then, since the animals give instinctual consent to each other?
As long as they aren't different species and the producers are exploiting the fact they are in heat, then that's fine.
Honestly, you can't. Not 100%. There's always room for the failure or the slip-ups...
They aren't people.
Neither are animals, huh. Btw, I see and respect your view, I just like to argue.
Why is it okay to thrash an ant hill but not to, say, let a dog lick your penis because there's something tasty on it?
As long as they aren't different species and the producers are exploiting the fact they are in heat, then that's fine.
So what is it that makes it right while it would be wrong to record some critter mounting a woman without giving it more encouragement than placing her conveniently for aforementioned mounting?
Honestly, you can't. Not 100%. There's always room for the failure or the slip-ups...
That's pretty much a stalemate then.
I just like to argue.
That's the world events forum for you.
Why is it okay to thrash an ant hill but not to, say, let a dog lick your penis because there's something tasty on it?
I didn't say it was ok to thrash an ant hill or indeed let a dog lick your penis. I was trying to make the point that although no one(humans) get physically hurt by watching animal porn, but in the process of making this porn, animal rights are infringed, namely informed consent.
So what is it that makes it right while it would be wrong to record some critter mounting a woman without giving it more encouragement than placing her conveniently for aforementioned mounting?
The animal does not realise what the purpose of what it is doing as it lacks the necessary neocortical capabilities. Informed consent is vital in ensuring the legality of porn, animals included, and as this cannot be given, animal porn should not be allowed.
This should totally be a separate thread. D:
Indeed. I would be a little surprised if it had not been made by someone before though. Still, it's probably buried deep in the archives.
but in the process of making this porn, animal rights are infringed, namely informed consent.
So why is it that animal consent is basically ignored in farming and most owning of pets? Nobody cares whether the animal gave their consent - we've placed them under those conditions, and as long as they aren't outright hurt (mentally or physically) all is good?
The animal does not realise what the purpose of what it is doing
The purpose?
Indeed. I would be a little surprised if it had not been made by someone before though. Still, it's probably buried deep in the archives.
Closest I know of would be the paraphilia thread, but the wall of text of doom in the OP scared most people away from that one.
We should make a thread. I think. But I don't know what the OP should contain.
So why is it that animal consent is basically ignored in farming and most owning of pets? Nobody cares whether the animal gave their consent - we've placed them under those conditions, and as long as they aren't outright hurt (mentally or physically) all is good?
The issue isn't that animals have to give their consent when they are effected by 3rd parties, but that pornographic law specifically states that informed consent is necessary, and because animals cannot comprehend it, it should not be legal.
As for the reasons why other things we use animals for are legal is because of necessity. We need animals to provide us with meat and milk, without which it would be very hard to adjust. These animals are bred specifically for that purpose. The world would not mourn the loss of animal porn.
In addition, there is a much nogger danger animals will come into contact with phyical or phsychological harm when partaking in animal porn that in being a domesticated pet for example.
The purpose?
Why they are doing what they are doing. Ie, providing material that possibly thousands of people will derive sexual pleasure from, and will be distributed through a medium which anyone can access. For that you need consent, animal or human.
Closest I know of would be the paraphilia thread, but the wall of text of doom in the OP scared most people away from that one.
We should make a thread. I think. But I don't know what the OP should contain.
Well, I'd say keep the OP short and simple. An open question that would encourage different perspectives.
Something as minimalistic as: ''Is animal porn accpetable?'' could work quite well methinks.
One can enforce zoophilia laws by taking down sites containing the stuff.
Not quite; one can only enforce zoophilia pornography laws by taking down the sites.
The issue isn't that animals have to give their consent when they are effected by 3rd parties, but that pornographic law specifically states that informed consent is necessary, and because animals cannot comprehend it, it should not be legal. As for the reasons why other things we use animals for are legal is because of necessity. We need animals to provide us with meat and milk, without which it would be very hard to adjust. These animals are bred specifically for that purpose. The world would not mourn the loss of animal porn. In addition, there is a much nogger danger animals will come into contact with phyical or phsychological harm when partaking in animal porn that in being a domesticated pet for example.
I don't think the 'consent' argument is particularly convincing. If we don't need consent to slaughter animals for food, or breed them in captivity to harvest material (eggs, milk, cheese, etc.) and we don't need consent to experiment on animals in the laboratory, many of which end in the death of the animal, then doing something less drastic then death, namely, having sex with an animal and filming it, is a much easier moral question; and already answered if society doesn't have an issue with the other, more destructive acts.
Also, with regards to the animal not being able to comprehend the act of sex & film - that argument can go both ways. If they don't understand it, then I don't think they're capable of caring or feeling shame about it.
I don't think the 'consent' argument is particularly convincing. If we don't need consent to slaughter animals for food, or breed them in captivity to harvest material (eggs, milk, cheese, etc.) and we don't need consent to experiment on animals in the laboratory, many of which end in the death of the animal, then doing something less drastic then death, namely, having sex with an animal and filming it, is a much easier moral question; and already answered if society doesn't have an issue with the other, more destructive acts.
I am of the opinion that animal rights legislation needs to be stepped up, and that what is demeed legal or illegal according to the state does nto equate to morality.
If you believe we have some agreement with the state so that we are bound to observe its laws, then doing something illegal can be wrong because it violates some sense of trust between you and the state, and that could certainly be an argument for why some illegal act is wrong to do, but it doesn't really address whether the act itself is wrong or not or why it is wrong/illegal in the first place; it adresses whether the act is wrong or not when perfprmed by a person in a particular relationship to the state.
I think most people would find some instance of applying that argument ''x is right/wrong because it is legal/illegal'' where it is very unsatisfactory. Just apply it to drugs use, homosexual marriage, various racist laws from the past, etc., and we can quickly end any debates on those topics. Or, for example ''animal porn is wrong because it is illegal'', which seems to fail to capture anything about what animal porn actually is. If society magically collapsed and all law disappeared, would animal porn still be wrong? If so, then there's some other underlying reason for what makes it wrong.
Laws often reflect some group's sense of morailty, but I don't think it's clear at all that legality is identical with morality, nor that it provides a satisfactory explanation of why something is wrong or right.
That's why I don't buy the ''we use animals as test subjects, for meat etc'' argument. Just because those things are legal doesn't make them right. All it means is that more needs to be done in the area of animal law to quantify these deficiencies.
Very true. Morality is a different issue; however, seeing as the thread is born from a question of legality, I was sticking to that as my basis for an argument.
As for that morality - we have reached the point where we disagree on principle. I don't have issues with the current legislation on animal cruelty/treatment. I believe in laboratory experimentation, I believe in harvesting animals for food, and if someone has a sexual 'need' (a different debate, so I'm going to leave that alone) for animals, or to watch that sort of thing, then I'm fine with that too.
I hold a great deal more value on both human life itself, and the quality of that human life then I would over any other animal on the planet, including dogs, cats, monkeys, or whatever else.
Very true. Morality is a different issue; however, seeing as the thread is born from a question of legality, I was sticking to that as my basis for an argument.
From a purely legal perspective, I would argue the production of animal porn is very prone to the maltreatment of said animals, and as such should not be legal.
There is nothing implicitly wrong with the action of watching animal porn; the liberal inside me dictates people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. However when that comes at the price of the potential physical or psychological damage caused to these animals due to lack of consent, these freedoms should be curtailed. I would rather someone with an animal fetish would find some other way to satisfy their urges than have animals being maltreated.
I don't have issues with the current legislation on animal cruelty/treatment
I eat meat, I use products that were tested on animals in labs, however I still think that work needs to be done. For example there is a stack of legislation protecting the rights of seals with regards to the manner of their death, yet pig farmers are given free reign to slit throats of swine purely because it is more practical to do so. I just think there needs to be more of an even standard, not an end to the use of animals.
There is nothing implicitly wrong with the action of watching animal porn; the liberal inside me dictates people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own home. However when that comes at the price of the potential physical or psychological damage caused to these animals due to lack of consent, these freedoms should be curtailed. I would rather someone with an animal fetish would find some other way to satisfy their urges than have animals being maltreated.
You know there is also danger to humans? In Oregon a man died when having sex with a horse, the horse penis punctured his colon... and that is when Oregon stepped up and put a ban against bestiality.
