6 Mar 10, 2:08 AM
emark
UK, 9 yrs |
Wonky_Donkey wrote:
Often the 'wanking' of stud animals is done for the animals safety.
Fact.
I personally have had to use this method before with our breeding of sheep, also artificial insemination with our pigs.
Our ram is uber aggresive and likely to do some permanant damage to our ewes.
Have to say, Ive never got a kick out of doing it.
I find it highly unlikely others in the trade are doing it for their sexual kicks and not for the safety of their prize animals and effective productivity. |
But how does the animal know if you're getting off on it? I mean, if the argument is that it's wrong because of the effect it has on the animal, then surely this applies no matter what the motives, which the animal will have no comprehension of? (I must admit, I had no idea that this was done to animals at all - it makes me even less concerned at alleged harm to animals, and more suspicious that the outrage is over reasons other than issues of animal cruelty.)
R_Rotten wrote:
Oh so someone has been convicted of having violent porn on their computer? nope, some guy with a cartoon of a woman having sex with a tiger. |
That he was prosecuted for this is, if anything, far worse, as it's far beyond the original scope of the law, covering non-realistic and clearly fake images intended as a joke.
| Suppose someone had to stick up for his rights to have cartoon tiger porn... |
You believe that people don't have the right to privately possess cartoon joke images they've been sent, and we should lock people up?
As Fourfiveone says, he is facing charges under the other parts of the law, covering adults. So yes, this stands as an example of someone charged under those parts of the law, who wasn't in possession of animal or child porn. (But I'm sure that whatever happens, there'll be back-pedalling, so that some people still find a reason why it "doesn't count", and find an opportunity to throw mud at anyone who dares to criticise the law...)
ETA: Alternatively, I'm still looking forward to the first instance of "Well of course it's right he was arrested, that's what the law says, the police are just doing their jobs - if you don't like it, you should have protested when the law was being proposed"...
| The merest mention of a tiger, chicken etc and im gettin the hell outta dodge as i dont want to be associated with animal porn. |
Sure. But he didn't have tiger porn. The tiger wasn't real. (And, as I said in my earlier comment, the bizarre thing is that _actual_ images of real animal cruelty are entirely legal - shouldn't they be illegal too? What about cartoons of animal cruelty?)Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement
Edited 6 Mar 10, 2:20 AM by emark
|
6 Mar 10, 2:16 AM
emark
UK, 9 yrs |
mq1965 wrote:
And did anyone see that extraordinary link someone posted a while ago to a website where someone had (apparently as a spoof) given a detailed account of how he had paid tribute to his beloved rabbit when it died by cooking and eating it. There were hundreds of responses pouring abuse on him, even death threats, about how callous and heartless he was, and how could he do such an awful thing, almost certainly most from people who would quite happily eat meat. |
That was a classic  For the curious: http://siamang.livejournal.com/43717.htmlSign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement
|
