Which of the following should be ILLEGAL?

[John Dibble]

Well, the obvious paedophilia - can't have sex with no children now. Exhibitionism in the sense of walking around public and flashing people, though not illegal in the consenting case. Frotteurism, since it involves touching someone on purpose against their will. Voyeurism, as it violates privacy. Other than that the others CAN be ok, though necrophilia only if the person consents to their corpse being used like that. The others, while some of them sick to me, don't really harm anyone(consent to have a sadist do stuff to you isn't really harm) or violate anyone's space, so I've got nothing against it.

[John Dibble]

Frotteurism, since it involves touching someone on purpose against their will.

No, it does not say that.  It says UNCONSENTING.  It could be a case of rubbing against someone on the dance floor (afterall, no express consent was given).  It could also be bad.

Well, I took it more in the sense of like rubbing up against someone in a harassing manner on a subway train or something, not something like dancing where such physical contact is somewhat expected.

[John Dibble]

Klismaphilia - Yes - see above

Er, how does disease spread through enemas?

Further, sex itself can spread disease, so I think it's poor reason to ban it.

[John Dibble]

Zoophilia is by far the worse on this list, followed closely by paedophilia.

What...wait...huh? So sex with an animal is worse than molesting a human child? Are you a member of PETA or something?

[John Dibble]

Zoophilia is by far the worse on this list, followed closely by paedophilia.

What...wait...huh? So sex with an animal is worse than molesting a human child? Are you a member of PETA or something?

Don't you watch South Park, PETA is the problem

Yes, I do, and that's how I feel about PETA, they seem to value animal life over human life, which I find ridiculous. That's why I'm asking - why is sex with animals worse than child molestation?

[John Dibble]

Zoophilia is by far the worse on this list, followed closely by paedophilia.

What...wait...huh? So sex with an animal is worse than molesting a human child? Are you a member of PETA or something?

Don't you watch South Park, PETA is the problem

Yes, I do, and that's how I feel about PETA, they seem to value animal life over human life, which I find ridiculous. That's why I'm asking - why is sex with animals worse than child molestation?

They are both equally bad, because consent is not given in either place. The only think that makes zoophilia worse, is that when it comes to animals, consent can never be given. With pedophilia, some age groups are old enough to give consent. (doesnt make it right though). However, when we are speaking of non consentual pedophilia, it is equally as bad. 

If a woman gets on her hands and knees and a dog mounts her, consent isn't given? Disgusting yes, but I think that can count as consent.

Further, what I dislike about your logic is that violating an animal is equal to violating a human. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly - human rights are greater than animal rights any day of the week.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, human rights are more important, but that doesnt take away from the fact that they are both equally wrong things to do. It's about the act.

Fact? Excuse me, that's your opinion, not fact. My opinion is that since human rights are more important then logically the violation of the human is more wrong. Your logic is easily extended to other things - it's equally wrong to torture an animal and a human, then it's equally wrong to kill an animal and a human. See what I'm getting at? Sorry, but I'm of the mentality that no violation of an animal is equal to that of the same violation to a human.

Now, I've also got a question for you since you seem to think these are equally wrong acts - should an 'animal molestor' get the same jail time as a child molestor?

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, human rights are more important, but that doesnt take away from the fact that they are both equally wrong things to do. It's about the act.

Fact? Excuse me, that's your opinion, not fact. My opinion is that since human rights are more important then logically the violation of the human is more wrong. Your logic is easily extended to other things - it's equally wrong to torture an animal and a human, then it's equally wrong to kill an animal and a human. See what I'm getting at? Sorry, but I'm of the mentality that no violation of an animal is equal to that of the same violation to a human.

Now, I've also got a question for you since you seem to think these are equally wrong acts - should an 'animal molestor' get the same jail time as a child molestor?

As a biology geek, I have to agree with Mr. Canadian. But on the other hand, Cannibalism should be legalized, but only for EXTREME situations.
I mean no one complains about slaughtering beef, or chicken.
Animals (us) eat other animals (them). it's just nature. But since we're so arrogant because of inteligence, let's just say that we're just putting restrictions on ourselves.

should an 'animal molestor' get the same jail time as a child molestor?

Yes! what on earth puts a child superior or mpre delicate than a non-human counterpart???

You are forgetting a very essential difference between humans and the rest of the animals - we are sentient beings, they are not.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, human rights are more important, but that doesnt take away from the fact that they are both equally wrong things to do. It's about the act.

Fact? Excuse me, that's your opinion, not fact. My opinion is that since human rights are more important then logically the violation of the human is more wrong. Your logic is easily extended to other things - it's equally wrong to torture an animal and a human, then it's equally wrong to kill an animal and a human. See what I'm getting at? Sorry, but I'm of the mentality that no violation of an animal is equal to that of the same violation to a human.

Now, I've also got a question for you since you seem to think these are equally wrong acts - should an 'animal molestor' get the same jail time as a child molestor?

No! I said it was about the act of having sex with an animal. Not molesting. Of course molesting a child is 10 times worse than an animal. You cannot really sexually molest an animal. It's about the actual act of zoophilia that is disgusting, as is pedophilia. It's not about who it is done upon, it what's in the person's mind.

Wait...what...huh? Having sex with an animal and molesting a child are both acts, pretty much the same act with a different target really. You aren't making sense. If one is worse than the other in action, then one is worse period - be consistent.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, human rights are more important, but that doesnt take away from the fact that they are both equally wrong things to do. It's about the act.

Fact? Excuse me, that's your opinion, not fact. My opinion is that since human rights are more important then logically the violation of the human is more wrong. Your logic is easily extended to other things - it's equally wrong to torture an animal and a human, then it's equally wrong to kill an animal and a human. See what I'm getting at? Sorry, but I'm of the mentality that no violation of an animal is equal to that of the same violation to a human.

Now, I've also got a question for you since you seem to think these are equally wrong acts - should an 'animal molestor' get the same jail time as a child molestor?

No! I said it was about the act of having sex with an animal. Not molesting. Of course molesting a child is 10 times worse than an animal. You cannot really sexually molest an animal. It's about the actual act of zoophilia that is disgusting, as is pedophilia. It's not about who it is done upon, it what's in the person's mind.

Wait...what...huh? Having sex with an animal and molesting a child are both acts, pretty much the same act with a different target really. You aren't making sense. If one is worse than the other in action, then one is worse period - be consistent.

Sex and molestation are two different things.  Hence, each one can have various variables.

Having sex with a child is ALWAYS child molestation.

[John Dibble]

No. That's precisely what he meant. According to legal fiction, a child, or even (in many states) a 17 year old can't consent to sexual actions. Thence the term, "statutory rape".

Damn! that sucks! but just cause the law says so dont mean it's true.

That is roughly what I believe. A three year old doesn't really have the knowledge, experience, or mental capacity to understand sex, so even if you could convince the child to give 'consent' it is still child molestation because the adult should know better. Now, I would say it's different with a 17 year old, and at some point the crime should be a bit different in terms of law(in Georgia I believe it's 15 and younger to be considered child molestation, not sure exactly).

[John Dibble]

I meant molestation as in gential touching an what not, but no penetration

Well then since to you molesting a child is worse than sex with an animal then sex with a child must be far, far worse. Seems you're going back on what you were saying earlier about zoophilia being slightly worse.

[John Dibble]

Well then since to you molesting a child is worse than sex with an animal then sex with a child must be far, far worse. Seems you're going back on what you were saying earlier about zoophilia being slightly worse.

well, maybe he dint remember his previous post. But even so. havin sex w/ ANYTHING not your species is worse than doin in w/ something your own species.

And you call me a species supremacist in the other thread.

More disgusting and repugnant maybe, but definitely not worse in terms of morality - it is far worse to do something to a human child. Sorry but I maintain that animals and humans are not equal, so doing something to a human is always worse.

[John Dibble]

Well then since to you molesting a child is worse than sex with an animal then sex with a child must be far, far worse. Seems you're going back on what you were saying earlier about zoophilia being slightly worse.

well, maybe he dint remember his previous post. But even so. havin sex w/ ANYTHING not your species is worse than doin in w/ something your own species.

And you call me a species supremacist in the other thread.

More disgusting and repugnant maybe, but definitely not worse in terms of morality - it is far worse to do something to a human child. Sorry but I maintain that animals and humans are not equal, so doing something to a human is always worse.

Is saving their life worse? hmmmmm...

What? Who said anything about saving a life?

[John Dibble]

I meant molestation as in gential touching an what not, but no penetration

Well then since to you molesting a child is worse than sex with an animal then sex with a child must be far, far worse. Seems you're going back on what you were saying earlier about zoophilia being slightly worse.

I didnt say that.  I said, molesting a child was worse than molesting an animal. Having sex with a child is as bad as having sex with an animal.

...what? It's worse to do one bad thing to a human than to an animal, but not another? Can we say 'inconsistent'?

[John Dibble]

I meant molestation as in gential touching an what not, but no penetration

Well then since to you molesting a child is worse than sex with an animal then sex with a child must be far, far worse. Seems you're going back on what you were saying earlier about zoophilia being slightly worse.

I didnt say that.  I said, molesting a child was worse than molesting an animal. Having sex with a child is as bad as having sex with an animal.

...what? It's worse to do one bad thing to a human than to an animal, but not another? Can we say 'inconsistent'?

How so? It's not ok to kill a human, but it is okay to kill an animal (for food) because that is the chain of life. What is not the chain of life is having sex with animals.

So? Because it's not in the 'chain of life' it makes it equally wrong? Doesn't make sense to me. And to further your inconsistency, molesting animals isn't in the chain of life either, but you hold that it is less wrong than molesting a human child.

[John Dibble]

I meant molestation as in gential touching an what not, but no penetration

Well then since to you molesting a child is worse than sex with an animal then sex with a child must be far, far worse. Seems you're going back on what you were saying earlier about zoophilia being slightly worse.

I didnt say that.  I said, molesting a child was worse than molesting an animal. Having sex with a child is as bad as having sex with an animal.

...what? It's worse to do one bad thing to a human than to an animal, but not another? Can we say 'inconsistent'?

How so? It's not ok to kill a human, but it is okay to kill an animal (for food) because that is the chain of life. What is not the chain of life is having sex with animals.

So? Because it's not in the 'chain of life' it makes it equally wrong? Doesn't make sense to me. And to further your inconsistency, molesting animals isn't in the chain of life either, but you hold that it is less wrong than molesting a human child.

Because you can't really molest an animal, without having sex with it.

Says who?

[John Dibble]

I meant molestation as in gential touching an what not, but no penetration

Well then since to you molesting a child is worse than sex with an animal then sex with a child must be far, far worse. Seems you're going back on what you were saying earlier about zoophilia being slightly worse.

I didnt say that.  I said, molesting a child was worse than molesting an animal. Having sex with a child is as bad as having sex with an animal.

...what? It's worse to do one bad thing to a human than to an animal, but not another? Can we say 'inconsistent'?

How so? It's not ok to kill a human, but it is okay to kill an animal (for food) because that is the chain of life. What is not the chain of life is having sex with animals.

So? Because it's not in the 'chain of life' it makes it equally wrong? Doesn't make sense to me. And to further your inconsistency, molesting animals isn't in the chain of life either, but you hold that it is less wrong than molesting a human child.

Because you can't really molest an animal, without having sex with it.

Says who?

Well, are there any anti-animal molestation laws? Not that I know of. You cant have sex with an animal, or be cruel to one, but nothing that says you cant specifically molest an animal. 

If you can't have sex with an animal, then there are tons of website owners and video makers that would have been arrested by now. I'm sure it's illegal in some states, but not others. Besides, I don't let the law determine what's right and wrong for me.

[John Dibble]

I know, because you're a Libertarian. It ruins it for us law abiding citizens. Anyways, I am fairly certain bestiality is illegal except for a few countries. (I think it's legal in the Netherlands, sick s)

Law != morality, and that has nothing to do with libertarianism whatsoever. If I created a law that made it illegal to butter the bottom of your toast, would that make buttering the bottom of your toast immoral? HECK NO! If murder is legal, does that make it moral? HECK NO! Use some sense - law does not determine morality, that should be obvious. Also, you are asserting I'm not a law-abiding citizen, which is total bull based on nothing.

Now, if you're curious on legality, you should look it up and not just say "I'm sure it is illegal". Here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex13.htm

[John Dibble]

If murder is legal, does that make it moral? HECK NO!

Oh I get it! and if gay marriage, and abortion are legal, does that make tham moral? HECK NO!

Am I asking you to think they are? HECK NO! So why the hell was the above response even necessary? You can think whatever you want is moral or immoral, I just think the law isn't a good guide to morality.

[John Dibble]

Am I asking you to think they are? HECK NO! So why the hell was the above response even necessary? You can think whatever you want is moral or immoral, I just think the law isn't a good guide to morality.

i actually oppose abortion and gay marriage, thank you very much! They could have any privilege here on earth, I could care less. Let the ignorant seculars do what they please to those people.

Ignorant seculars? Don't be a jackass - I'm secular, and you'll find a good number of people on this forum are as well, so you might want to avoid such comments if you want your time here to be friendly. If you oppose abortion and gay marriage, that's your perogative.

[John Dibble]

Am I asking you to think they are? HECK NO! So why the hell was the above response even necessary? You can think whatever you want is moral or immoral, I just think the law isn't a good guide to morality.

i actually oppose abortion and gay marriage, thank you very much! They could have any privilege here on earth, I could care less. Let the ignorant seculars do what they please to those people.

Ignorant seculars? Don't be a jackass - I'm secular, and you'll find a good number of people on this forum are as well, so you might want to avoid such comments if you want your time here to be friendly. If you oppose abortion and gay marriage, that's your perogative.

awwwww I'm SOOO Sorry! [serious]I'm just trying to imitate Opebo here[/serious]

Ok then, just try to make it apparent - you can't always read what people are trying to do via text.

[John Dibble]

I know, because you're a Libertarian. It ruins it for us law abiding citizens. Anyways, I am fairly certain bestiality is illegal except for a few countries. (I think it's legal in the Netherlands, sick s)

Law != morality, and that has nothing to do with libertarianism whatsoever. If I created a law that made it illegal to butter the bottom of your toast, would that make buttering the bottom of your toast immoral? HECK NO! If murder is legal, does that make it moral? HECK NO! Use some sense - law does not determine morality, that should be obvious. Also, you are asserting I'm not a law-abiding citizen, which is total bull based on nothing.

Now, if you're curious on legality, you should look it up and not just say "I'm sure it is illegal". Here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/sex13.htm

True, but more often then not, the law reflects what is more and what is not, and I believe it does so in this circumstance.

Well, seems to me the law punishes child molestation in all forms far more than it does sex with animals, so if the law is going to be your argument then the law debunks you.