Bestiality is out of bounds, as the beast is not capable of giving consent. Prohibiting such activities is justified.
An animal can demonstrate both desire and willingness, even if it cannot verbally give consent...
A friend of mine collects bizarre porn, including bestiality. On that one occasion I was drunk enough that the subject piqued my curiosity, I noted that the animals (dogs) seemed quite the willing participant.
QUOTE
Whether or not the government should recognize polygamist marriages is a different question, I'm willing to listen to arguments either way, but at the moment I'm leaning towards only recognizing two-party unions, regardless of gender.
I tended to agree, for the purpose of maintaining a gender equality (there are many polygynists out there, but few polyandists), but I changed my mind as a result of debating a person with the right idea, even if coupled with a rather poor ability to debate with integrity.
Can you give a good reason why only two party marriages should be recognized?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Whether or not the government should recognize polygamist marriages is a different question, I'm willing to listen to arguments either way, but at the moment I'm leaning towards only recognizing two-party unions, regardless of gender. |
I tended to agree, for the purpose of maintaining a gender equality (there are many polygynists out there, but few polyandists), but I changed my mind as a result of debating a person with the right idea, even if coupled with a rather poor ability to debate with integrity.
Can you give a good reason why only two party marriages should be recognized?
"Public decency" is an interesting topic, and I'm not 100% sure where I stand. I don't really approve of PDA, but should it be illegal? Probably not... And what even constitutes PDA? Actual intercourse, or any activity where bodily fluids might be released, in a public area could potentially constitute a health risk to others, and so a strong argument can be made for restriction... but if someone wants to play with human feces (or whatever else might constitute an "indecent act") in the privacy of their own home, so long as they don't expect the government to cover their health costs, then I see no basis for restriction.
Quite sensible. When I mentioned public decency, I was also referring to the "media" I previously mentioned. Do you think any media (within the context of this discussion: hardcore porn, fetish porn, etc.) should be restricted, or should the responsibility lay on the consumer to choose the media they purchase in accord with their own standards of decency?
flyingbuttressman
16th July 2009 - 08:16 PM
I'm pretty leftist in most areas, especially regarding social and educational issues.
I break with the left on nuclear power. I love nuclear power. I think that nuclear waste is an acceptable byproduct of otherwise clean and abundant energy. Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island are two examples of badly managed nuclear plants.
As far as government size and economic policy, I agree that free market strategies succeed in most cases, but in some cases services need to be provided that aren't suited to corporate treatment. Look at Amtrak for example. Natural monopolies should be nationalized. (a natural monopoly being an industry that does not benefit from competition) Comcast should be a government service (how could it get any worse?).
For foreign policy, I believe that the UN (or similar organization) should be the only organization capable of declaring war, and this would only be done in the case of human rights violations. There should be a world constitution and a true international criminal court. All space programs should be combined into one to save money and ensure the distribution of cost and knowledge among all countries (this program would of course be based in an equatorial country). Free trade should exist between all countries, but not for countries that fail to qualify based on living wage considerations. All unstable/overly religious countries should be declared "weapon-free zones"; all sale of weapons should be banned there and existing weapons should be destroyed.
Ok, this turned into something I didn't expect it to... I think I'm done though.
Argyll
16th July 2009 - 09:16 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
An animal can demonstrate both desire and willingness, even if it cannot verbally give consent...
Good point... but how can that willingness be confirmed after the fact? In other words, during a trial, how could that implied consent be verified? In other cases, male horses for example, it can be clearly evident from video footage that the animal was exhibiting a physical response to stimulation, but is that evidence of consent, or merely an automatic physiological reaction?
If the human were passive and the animal were active (such as the dog videos you refer to), I could be convinced that the animal has given implicit consent...
But then again, is this truly an informed consent, acknowledging the risks inherent in the action and accepting responsibility for any effects thereof, or is it an instinctual action driven by the biological imperatives of reproduction?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Can you give a good reason why only two party marriages should be recognized?
I'm not sure I can give a good reason why ANY marriage should be recognized by the state, outside of granting financial privileges that facilitate raising children... we could easily set up a system where the parents of a child would receive such benefits irrespective of their marital status. As such, all marriages, regardless of number of members or gender of the participants, would be non-recognized (by the state), but would not be prohibited so long as all members were consenting.
That being said, if we were to recognize marriage... limiting that recognition to two-party marriages prevents households from receiving a disproportionate benefit from the state.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Do you think any media (within the context of this discussion: hardcore porn, fetish porn, etc.) should be restricted, or should the responsibility lay on the consumer to choose the media they purchase in accord with their own standards of decency?
So long as all participants in the production of the media are consenting adults, then absolutely all responsibility lies with the consumer.
MjolnirPants
17th July 2009 - 12:14 AM
QUOTE (Argyll+Jul 16 2009, 04:16 PM)
Good point... but how can that willingness be confirmed after the fact? In other words, during a trial, how could that implied consent be verified?
I hate to say it but...
A demonstration.
QUOTE
In other cases, male horses for example, it can be clearly evident from video footage that the animal was exhibiting a physical response to stimulation, but is that evidence of consent, or merely an automatic physiological reaction?
This is a good point, but it raises an issue. Does the animal need to consent, or does the beastialist (I think that's the word...) simply need to prove the animal wasn't harmed?
After all, I doubt cows would give their consent to being slaughtered for beef...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In other cases, male horses for example, it can be clearly evident from video footage that the animal was exhibiting a physical response to stimulation, but is that evidence of consent, or merely an automatic physiological reaction? |
This is a good point, but it raises an issue. Does the animal need to consent, or does the beastialist (I think that's the word...) simply need to prove the animal wasn't harmed?
After all, I doubt cows would give their consent to being slaughtered for beef...
I'm not sure I can give a good reason why ANY marriage should be recognized by the state, outside of granting financial privileges that facilitate raising children... we could easily set up a system where the parents of a child would receive such benefits irrespective of their marital status. As such, all marriages, regardless of number of members or gender of the participants, would be non-recognized (by the state), but would not be prohibited so long as all members were consenting.
That would be acceptable to me, as it would immediately put all marriages on an equal footing.
QUOTE
That being said, if we were to recognize marriage... limiting that recognition to two-party marriages prevents households from receiving a disproportionate benefit from the state.
But the expansion of the household would offset the increase benefit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That being said, if we were to recognize marriage... limiting that recognition to two-party marriages prevents households from receiving a disproportionate benefit from the state. |
But the expansion of the household would offset the increase benefit.
So long as all participants in the production of the media are consenting adults, then absolutely all responsibility lies with the consumer.
Agreed again.
I think you're further to the left than you realize, but that's perfectly fine by me.
Argyll
17th July 2009 - 12:18 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 16 2009, 07:59 PM)
An animal can demonstrate both desire and willingness, even if it cannot verbally give consent...
The more I think about it, the less valid I find this argument. Animals can be, and frequently are, trained to behave in a manner that appears to indicate desire and willingness. As such, those animals are following their training, and are not actually indicating consent.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I think you're further to the left than you realize, but that's perfectly fine by me.
Which is why I qualified my answer as "strictly politically". To be conservative, politically, is to favor small government, to be opposed to government involvement, specifically federal involvement, in the affairs of the state and the citizen. I believe that my opinions stated here follow this definition. I answered "right-centrist" because I have realized that the truly free market does not actually work, and that there are roles for which it is entirely appropriate to have government involvement - education, infrastructure, and limited regulation of the market, for example.
Socially, on the other hand, I am as far left as one can be. Edit: ok, maybe not quite as far as one can be, or I'd be ok with bestiality, pedophilia, and who knows what else. But I'm still pretty far to the left socially.
MjolnirPants
17th July 2009 - 01:37 AM
QUOTE (Argyll+Jul 16 2009, 07:18 PM)
The more I think about it, the less valid I find this argument. Animals can be, and frequently are, trained to behave in a manner that appears to indicate desire and willingness. As such, those animals are following their training, and are not actually indicating consent.
Well, one could argue that by submitting to the training, the animal is consenting. Plus, it still leaves the issue of whether the animal's consent is actually needed....
QUOTE
Socially, on the other hand, I am as far left as one can be. Edit: ok, maybe not quite as far as one can be, or I'd be ok with bestiality, pedophilia, and who knows what else. But I'm still pretty far to the left socially.
I don't think pedophilia advocacy can be considered truly leftist... It is it's own unique view. Pedophilia has been shown to cause harm, and leftist social stances tend to base themselves on perceived harm, rather than accepted morality.
Of course, one could argue that the harm stems from the social stigma, and is not intrinsic, then cite cultures like the ancient Greeks and Romans to support their claims, but that's a tenuous stance.
Argyll
17th July 2009 - 01:54 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 17 2009, 01:37 AM)
Well, one could argue that by submitting to the training, the animal is consenting. Plus, it still leaves the issue of whether the animal's consent is actually needed....
But does an animal really
consent to training? With some training methods I could agree that the trainee is consenting to be trained, but with many others I would have to disagree. As far as whether consent is needed... I would argue that any sexual activity involving a living entity absent consent, regardless of species, constitutes rape. So yes, consent is needed.
The question remains, is an animal capable of indicating consent? It's possible that some animals (dolphins, elephants, great apes) might be able to learn how to indicate consent, but I seriously doubt a dog, horse, goat, etc would be able to do so.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 17 2009, 01:37 AM)
I don't think pedophilia advocacy can be considered truly leftist... It is it's own unique view. Pedophilia has been shown to cause harm, and leftist social stances tend to base themselves on perceived harm, rather than accepted morality.
I can agree with this, as perceived harm is indeed central in my consideration of these issues.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 17 2009, 01:37 AM)
Of course, one could argue that the harm stems from the social stigma, and is not intrinsic, then cite cultures like the ancient Greeks and Romans to support their claims, but that's a tenuous stance.
I definitely do not agree with that stance. There is demonstrable physical damage to the youngest victims of pedophilia, and observed psychological damage to many other victims.
That being said, I'd be willing to discuss the various factors that decide when an individual is legally considered an adult capable of giving consent vs still considered a child.
MjolnirPants
17th July 2009 - 02:10 AM
QUOTE (Argyll+Jul 16 2009, 08:54 PM)
But does an animal really
consent to training? With some training methods I could agree that the trainee is consenting to be trained, but with many others I would have to disagree. As far as whether consent is needed... I would argue that any sexual activity involving a living entity absent consent, regardless of species, constitutes rape. So yes, consent is needed.
I would tend to disagree with that one, as evinced by our use of animals for food, the lack of anesthesia required for many veterinary procedures which would -if done to humans- require anesthesia, and other such considerations. I would tend to hold the view that animals don't have rights beyond the right to avoid excessively cruel (read: painful) treatment.
QUOTE
The question remains, is an animal capable of indicating consent? It's possible that some animals (dolphins, elephants, great apes) might be able to learn how to indicate consent, but I seriously doubt a dog, horse, goat, etc would be able to do so.
This much I agree with. If there is to be a single answer to that question, I would say "no."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The question remains, is an animal capable of indicating consent? It's possible that some animals (dolphins, elephants, great apes) might be able to learn how to indicate consent, but I seriously doubt a dog, horse, goat, etc would be able to do so. |
This much I agree with. If there is to be a single answer to that question, I would say "no."
I definitely do not agree with that stance. There is demonstrable physical damage to the youngest victims of pedophilia, and observed psychological damage to many other victims.
I agree. I think that if one were to travel back in time to those cultures which tolerated pederasty, one would find real psychological damage in those who were involved in such relationships as the minor.
QUOTE
That being said, I'd be willing to discuss the various factors that decide when an individual is legally considered an adult capable of giving consent vs still considered a child.
Me too. I think 9 is far too young, but 16, or even 15 years old? How do you justify punishing someone who is nominally an adult for engaging in behavior which was encouraged by their consenting, teenage partner, which in turn was physically motivated by that partner's own hormones? Teens are naturally sexually curious, and to put a cut and dry "2 years or less difference, or over 18" limit on when and with whom they can explore their sexuality ignores the complexity of the issue.
That being said, I believe if the age of consent laws were to be relaxed, rape laws would have to be expanded to ensure that any form of coercion (including lying about what the experience will be like and so on,) can constitute rape, if so decided by a jury. This would be to prevent older, more wily individuals from taking advantage of a teens naivete.
Argyll
17th July 2009 - 02:41 AM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 17 2009, 02:10 AM)
I would tend to disagree with that one, as evinced by our use of animals for food, the lack of anesthesia required for many veterinary procedures which would -if done to humans- require anesthesia, and other such considerations. I would tend to hold the view that animals don't have rights beyond the right to avoid excessively cruel (read: painful) treatment.
To me, the lack of the ability of the animal to give consent, combined with the requirement that legal sexual activity involve only consenting individuals, places bestiality clearly in the illegal category, regardless of whether animals have rights or not.
I agree with your comments on minority experimentation. I'm not 100% sure how the law should handle it, but part of me says it's better to play it safe with a cut-and-dry age limit.
MjolnirPants
17th July 2009 - 03:36 AM
QUOTE (Argyll+Jul 16 2009, 09:41 PM)
I agree with your comments on minority experimentation. I'm not 100% sure how the law should handle it, but part of me says it's better to play it safe with a cut-and-dry age limit.
You're probably right. That's why I said "if" the age of consent laws were changed. A prosecutor can decline to prosecute a crime, but can't choose to prosecute a non-crime.
Derek1148
17th July 2009 - 04:31 PM
QUOTE (Argyll+Jul 17 2009, 02:41 AM)
I'm not 100% sure how the law should handle it, but part of me says it's better to play it safe with a cut-and-dry age limit.
Many state laws and Federal Law (as a consequence of the Assimilated Crimes Act) differ on the Age of Consent. Do you understand what the Age of Consent actually means?
RobDegraves
17th July 2009 - 04:45 PM
Hmmmm... could it be.. the age at which you can consent?
Argyll
17th July 2009 - 04:57 PM
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jul 17 2009, 04:31 PM)
Many state laws and Federal Law (as a consequence of the Assimilated Crimes Act) differ on the Age of Consent. Do you understand what the Age of Consent actually means?
Presumably, the age at which an individual is determined to be legally able to give consent.
My question is, is it appropriate for that to be a fixed age, or does that age differ based on the individual's physical and mental maturity?
Derek1148
17th July 2009 - 07:18 PM
QUOTE (Argyll+Jul 17 2009, 04:57 PM)
Presumably, the age at which an individual is determined to be legally able to give consent.
My question is, is it appropriate for that to be a fixed age, or does that age differ based on the individual's physical and mental maturity?
The Age of Consent varies from state to state. Let's say the Age of Consent is 15 years old. That means that the 15 year old girl is still a juvenile (or minor, until age 18). So if an adult has intercourse with that 15 year old girl, the adult might (and most likely would ) find himself charged with Statutory Rape (or perhaps Contributing to the Delingency of a Minor).
If that same adult were to have intercourse with a 9 year girl, the law indicates that the "consent" of the 9 year old is irrelevant. The adult could (and again likely would) be charged with Forcible Rape.
The Age of Consent indicates when a juvenile female (or minor female) can grant cognizant consent versus when the child is considered too young for consent to be relevant.
Derek1148
17th July 2009 - 07:22 PM
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 17 2009, 04:45 PM)
Hmmmm... could it be.. the age at which you can consent?
See above.
Argyll
17th July 2009 - 08:32 PM
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jul 17 2009, 07:18 PM)
The Age of Consent varies from state to state. Let's say the Age of Consent is 15 years old. That means that the 15 year old girl is still a juvenile (or minor, until age 18). So if an adult has intercourse with that 15 year old girl, the adult might (and most likely would ) find himself charged with Statutory Rape (or perhaps Contributing to the Delingency of a Minor).
If that same adult were to have intercourse with a 9 year girl, the law indicates that the "consent" of the 9 year old is irrelevant. The adult could (and again likely would) be charged with Forcible Rape.
The Age of Consent indicates when a juvenile female (or minor female) can grant cognizant consent versus when the child is considered too young for consent to be relevant.
That makes sense... but isn't that the same as simply applying one fixed age and applying it to all individuals? Sure, you've increased the granularity somewhat, but the question still remains - is this age necessarily the same for all individuals? By virtue of genetics or environment (or both), children achieve physical and/or mental maturity at different rates. At 15, who is to say that any given individual will have the sufficient physical maturity to "be ready" to participate in such activities, or the mental maturity to understand the implications of such activities? Some children will likely have the necessary levels of maturity to grant meaningful informed consent, while others will surely not. Is it appropriate to set one fixed limit, and hold all individuals against that limit? The answer might be yes, but I don't know for sure - and even if the answer is no, I'm not sure what alternative might be appropriate.
Derek1148
17th July 2009 - 09:57 PM
QUOTE (Argyll+Jul 17 2009, 08:32 PM)
That makes sense... but isn't that the same as simply applying one fixed age and applying it to all individuals? Sure, you've increased the granularity somewhat, but the question still remains - is this age necessarily the same for all individuals? By virtue of genetics or environment (or both), children achieve physical and/or mental maturity at different rates. At 15, who is to say that any given individual will have the sufficient physical maturity to "be ready" to participate in such activities, or the mental maturity to understand the implications of such activities? Some children will likely have the necessary levels of maturity to grant meaningful informed consent, while others will surely not. Is it appropriate to set one fixed limit, and hold all individuals against that limit? The answer might be yes, but I don't know for sure - and even if the answer is no, I'm not sure what alternative might be appropriate.
The courts generally consider mitigating (and aggravating) circumstances in criminal cases. That is the only way your concerns can be legally addressed.
egnorant
19th July 2009 - 07:46 AM
This has been a fun read.
All that can truly be said is that each of us are for people who agree with our own views.
Age of consent??!!
One template is not possible.
There are always exceptions that will cause unfairness and problems.
Is the Octo-mom capable of proper consent?
If I am REQUIRED to support a system that pays for her decisions I should get some voice in the process.
I am a practical anarchist......I will obey any law I agree with.
I also obey many laws where I have been threatened with realistic punishments that I wish to avoid.
I had a recent episode where the laws of my community conflicted.
Ozone action days prevented me from mowing....
City ordinance declared my lawn to be in violation of the law!!
I was a criminal and the city was required to uphold the law or be faced with charges themselves.
Every law, ordinance and ruling fits into a different slot as to its political bent and should be examined as such.
Unfortunately, my belief that most people should be left alone are squashed by a few who stand and shout that it should be done their way.
Bruce
FGG
19th July 2009 - 09:10 PM
Socialism and Communism will only work to everyones benefit with a very well equally educated population and restrained politicians(perhaps AI?). We have not reached this point anywhere that I know of yet.
Conservative brands of capitalism (free market) work best when the population is partially well educated and partially poorly educated... (ie. a sucker born every minute and the con man to take advantage of them) If everyone was well educated half the business in America would vanish! (used car warrantees, credit card companies, credit reporting agencies, Accident chasing Lawyers to name a few).
FGG
Olanzapine
2nd August 2009 - 09:53 PM
QUOTE (FGG+Jul 19 2009, 09:10 PM)
Socialism and Communism will only work to everyones benefit with a very well equally educated population and restrained politicians(perhaps AI?). We have not reached this point anywhere that I know of yet.
Hi All,
Nah, you fail to see the connection between socialism and communism, during peace time we run socialism but during war time we run communism. This was the USSR's mistake, they should have switched to socialism after ww2.
BTW, I voted for socialism.
Cheers
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.
