It's relevant because everyone is saying this is government censorship. The parent is pointing out it's the government in the same way as a HOA is. Ie not.
> And can we agree that there are lies that companies tell on adverts that can cause damage?
Yes, and very often those companies get sued. I'll agree no often enough. But I'll also note that the outrage leading up to the lawsuit is far more visible than the results of that legal action. I'll also agree that that legal action is often too slow.
> Carlsbergs tag line is still "probably the best beer in the world" despite it probably being not.
The lie has to be believable and cause damage. Was the unclear from my comment?
Even if they remove "probably" they could still get away with it because it isn't going to be believable and I doubt you could show damage. Just in the same way so many cafes have "Best coffee in X" and how frequently you see mugs like "Best Dad in the world." No one is getting sued over those because they aren't believable. I agree they're deceptive and in bad taste, but I think if you take some time to sit down and think about it you'll realize that to make statements like those illegal you're going to have a lot of unintended consequences.
You say animals can't consent, but in the uk it's illegal for the ladies to have sex with male animals. That must imply some sort of consent. This also raises interesting moral questions for the farming industry.
(Your question doesn't make sense, but) A quick search shows that sex with an animal is definitely illegal in the UK [0] whether it's a male or a female human involved.
Physiologically, a male getting an erection implies stimulation, not consent.
However, more broadly I agree with you that laws protecting animals from harm can often lag behind what some might consider necessary. And despite laws protecting animals from "unnecessary suffering" [0] we still allow the slaughter of animals for food; presumably either because such slaughter is considered necessary, or because the suffering is considered reduced to an acceptably level.
I think you're missing the point. I stick my penis in an animal. That is illegal. I stick something else in there to get it pregnant. Not illegal.
So this isn't about consent. And it's not about the laws lagging. It's about the law differing depending on why you're doing the thing to the animal.
I don't doubt that some vegans might treat animal breeding as rape but I don't think the general population does, or consider that element suffering in any way.
Thanks for the interesting thoughts, your questions definitely makes sense to me.
"Children and animals can’t consent" view from _mst is a non perfect position but perhaps better that considering the opposite? Children can be groomed to consent and others animals training to. Here's a sensitive topic but I think it adds to the conversation: It has been reported dogs been used to rape humans. That's horrific for the victim, however consider this: sure the dog somewhat consent, but is it his own will if the trainer ask him to?
This is not to contradict you demonstration based on erection. Regulations for animals are sometimes justified, though they are extremely loose when tied to consumption.
I think the 'children can't consent' concept generally works.
I think the 'animals can't consent' thing is a retroactive justification for what is either ick, or a religious hangover.
I've had female dogs on heat try to hump me. Is that not consent?
We don't get dogs permission before breeding them.
The concept of bodily autonomy for animals is basically non existent.
The argument was originally that it was 'unnatural' but gay rights put the nail in the coffin there. 'consent' sounds good, but it isn't what's going on. It's the same 'unnatural' position, without the intellectual honesty.
Problem for me is. I kind of agree with the current cultural position. But there's no actual framework around it, and I don't like arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons.
unnatural argument is to be ignored IMHO, it does't makes sense outside our emotional feeling and has multiple (and contradictory) interpretation so you'll end up arguing on each cases and don't have a rule/framework.
A thought experiment from Jonathan Haidt:
> Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France
on summer vacation from college. One night they are stay- ing alone in a
cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if
they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for
each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a
condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide
not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes
them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it
OK for them to make love?
I'm not saying unnatural is a good position. It is at least consistent with the attitudes we see.
Re the thought experiment. The standard argument is that of birth defects, which is obviously avoided. You could point to evolutionary pressures for the taboo also.
The thing is, kind of like pedophilia we've drawn a hard line. You could make the argument that someone the day before their 16th birthday is the same as the day after, therefore it's ok. I think the line being clear has more utility than the alternative. In this situation we're being invited to redraw a line, but where to put it? Do we make the getting pregnant illegal? Not being careful enough? So I would keep the line where it is.
Is dressing as a baby wanting to be a baby? If you indulge someone doing that, are you treating them as a baby and therefore at risk of becoming a pedo? If my girlfriend likes it a bit rough in bed, am I more likely to be abusive to her? To abuse my next partner?
If you play dungeons and dragons are you more likely to go to your school and start slaying students?
How is this going to work in practice, if I watch a vid that's tagged 'step relative' am I going off the jail and on the register?
Does it have to be in the description?
What if it's just been tagged every which way and does actually appear to portray anything illegal?
What if the tags and titles are removed, and I watch exactly the same videos. Am I committing an offense because in someone's head canon the characters are related?
Don't know why it took so long though. I knew they needed this when wikileaks was cut off from everything.
reply