finally

[eppie]

Today in the Netherlands the senate finally voted to forbid bestiality. The house of representatives did the same a while ago, so finally it will become illegal to make pornography with animals......something which apparantly was done a lot in the Netherlands because in many other countries this was illegal already.

As a strong supporter of animal rights I am of course happy with this, even though I also know that there are many other cases in which animals are treated bad as well (often even worse) and usually on a much larger scale.

The 'interesting thing' was that two parties voted against this new legislation..... CDA (the christian party) and VVD (the 'rich people's' party). Historically these two parties both more or less divide votes from people in and related to the agricultural business, so historically are the most reluctant to work on better animal rights because the know that is going to cost them votes.
The thing I am wondering is how they want to explain this voting to the public. Arguments they apparantly made is that this is 'symbol politics'.....so a very small problem (in numbers) and it is better to do something 'bigger'......I don't buy these arguments from them, because as I said before these two parties are the ones that are always blocking propositions about animal welfare. So again, how are the Christians and the business-people's parties going to explain that they want to keep bestiality legal?
I think they will try not to mention this ever and hope no-one will bring it up in election time.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Today in the Netherlands the senate finally voted to forbid bestiality.

I don't see what right the government has to limit what consenting adult animals do in the privacy of their barns. :lol:

Seriously, in one sense I agree with you. While a balance needs to be maintained, protecting animals is a worthwhile cause. On the other hand, this stinks of political correctness. I'm sure that there are more serious problems both in terms of numbers effected and of injury done for your government to address. If not, congratulations on living in a near perfect place.

The value of a law as anything other than a political statement depends on how well it is enforced and how big a punishment it earns. More interesting than these votes is what is being done a year from now. If the intention is strictly symbolical done for political hay, then I'd rather the law not be passed at all rather than that the legal code be further encrusted by meaningless additions.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

On the other hand, this stinks of political correctness.

As long as the government doesn't interfere with my right to decorate my yule tree with the entrails of various beasts according to the whimsy of Tyr. Oh Tannenbaum! Wie treu sind deine Blätter!

[--Pete]

Hi,

As long as the government doesn't interfere with my right to decorate my yule tree with the entrails of various beasts according to the whimsy of Tyr. Oh Tannenbaum! Wie treu sind deine Blätter!

I prefer to stuff the entrails with the ground up parts of the various beasts and a mixture of herbs and spices. Then a few days or weeks in a cold smoker. Yum! :whistling:

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
I don't see what right the government has to limit what consenting adult animals do in the privacy of their barns. :lol:

Seriously, in one sense I agree with you. While a balance needs to be maintained, protecting animals is a worthwhile cause. On the other hand, this stinks of political correctness. I'm sure that there are more serious problems both in terms of numbers effected and of injury done for your government to address. If not, congratulations on living in a near perfect place.

I wish. Although I don't want to discuss about things like pleasure hunting, bio-industry (do you use that word in english.....I mean cattle raising in very small spaces.....something where the dutch and the danes are masters in), killing animals for fur, there are other things which everyone should agree with they are scandalous. If you seriously mistreat animals (for fun or carelessness) (ending up in them dying, being maimed etc.) you hardly get any fine (that is if they catch you) and you are allowed just as easy to get new animals and treating them the same way again. They might say 'don't do that again' if they catched you three times.

The value of a law as anything other than a political statement depends on how well it is enforced and how big a punishment it earns. More interesting than these votes is what is being done a year from now. If the intention is strictly symbolical done for political hay, then I'd rather the law not be passed at all rather than that the legal code be further encrusted by meaningless additions.

--Pete

You are absolutely right.....and as I said before in this reply, the enforcement remains very bad for all kinds of animal mistreatment. Even though it is a fact that people who hurt animals for fun in their childhood, are very likely of doing the same with people later on. (most sadistic serial killers have abused animals in theior younger years) So with this in mind you should at least heavily check such kind of people.
(around the town where I did my PhD, there were many cases (in a few year span) of sadistic and sexual animal (horses mainly) abuse......once they finally cought the guy (by accident probably) it turned out he had killed a homeless guy a year ago (for the fun of it).

The reason why I don't want to classify this as just symbolical is because of who voted against.
If the PvdD (animal rights party) had voted against because they found this law didn't go far enough, and at the same time they would propose a stricter law, I could understand this, but the parties that voted against just want to use this for their campaign next year (they can say the voted against because of the law not going far enough, even though they never would even consider laws going further.......but their voters will believe them.

So all in all, this is just a proposition, a quick vote, and a new law is in the making......which finally is a good thing. Now slowly, slowly, other parties can lobby for better enforcement.
So although small, it is a step in the right direction.

[kandrathe]

Even though it is a fact that people who hurt animals for fun in their childhood, are very likely of doing the same with people later on. (most sadistic serial killers have abused animals in theior younger years) So with this in mind you should at least heavily check such kind of people.

Just so we are clear where my positions lay, unlike it seems my discussion of the FLDS. I love animals (in a good way), and I was raised on a small farm where we raised beef cattle for eating.

The juvenile mistreatment of animals is one indication of a troubled psyche, even in childhood. I knew of two boys who when I was growing up who described some of their abuse of animals (frogs mostly), and one eventually stalked women, and would hide in their closets. He was physically abused by his father. He never became an actual murderer, but I would guess he may have fantasized about it. He was in and out of the system for a number of years until he finally got enough professional help to reconnect with our society in a positive manner. The other boy changed direction on his own by 6th grade, became a friend of mine (an others in the drama department) and was a very nice person, after high school he went to college, acted in community theater, had a profession as a psychologist.

Primarily my concern about this fuzzy line is that "rights" are currently reserved to people. When we start anthropomorphizing our pets (or farm animals, or wild animals) and giving them the natural law rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then I get very worried for the future of our species. You don't understand sport hunting, but don't project onto hunters some homicidal intent. You assume that "feedlot" farming is cruel, because you have seen some videos of cruel feedlot conditions. This type of propaganda is sufficient for cause oriented advocates to sway lots of soft hearted people to vote away their freedoms.

[eppie]

Primarily my concern about this fuzzy line is that "rights" are currently reserved to people. When we start anthropomorphizing our pets (or farm animals, or wild animals) and giving them the natural law rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then I get very worried for the future of our species.

What is your concern about realizing animals have feelings, emotions and can feel pain, and for that reason try, within reason, not to hurt them without reason?
Even though I have huge problems with the industrial way of keeping livestock, I also understand that food production is the purpose, and people need food to survive (even though I personally don't eat meat). So I am not talking about this.

You don't understand sport hunting, but don't project onto hunters some homicidal intent.

Even though this was not the thing I wanted to discuss about I can say I have a double feeling with hunting.
Hunting and then eat the kills is fine, as long as it is done in a good way. Sports hunting I find less of a nice thing. I don't say sports hunters have homicidal intents, but they like to kill animals.....same feeling as people how go and watch free-fight shows.....not my thing, even though I understand that this wanting to kill or see fights is a very basic human emotion.

You assume that "feedlot" farming is cruel, because you have seen some videos of cruel feedlot conditions. This type of propaganda is sufficient for cause oriented advocates to sway lots of soft hearted people to vote away their freedoms.

I wasn't saying that. Just as with hunting, I also didn't want to discuss this.


I was talking about far more visible things that most (at least I think) people will agree on (so not about hunting or feedlot farming). Hurting animals for the fun of it, unnecesarry hurting of animals or bestiality are things that in most western nations are illegal. Anthropomorphization has nothing to do with that.

[Delc]

Even though this was not the thing I wanted to discuss about I can say I have a double feeling with hunting.
Hunting and then eat the kills is fine, as long as it is done in a good way. Sports hunting I find less of a nice thing. I don't say sports hunters have homicidal intents, but they like to kill animals.....same feeling as people how go and watch free-fight shows.....not my thing, even though I understand that this wanting to kill or see fights is a very basic human emotion.

Outside of people who go on safaris in africa does any hunter not eat (or sell/donate) what they kill?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Outside of people who go on safaris in africa does any hunter not eat (or sell/donate) what they kill?

Unfortunately, yes. There are trophy hunters who kill for show. They'll go after the bald eagle because it is the national symbol, it is endangered, and it is a hard hunt. They'll go after other species because of the rarity (i.e., endangered), difficulty, or danger. Often, they'll only take a head or a rack for their wall.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

So although small, it is a step in the right direction.

I wonder. Did the Netherlands already have laws against animal cruelty or abuse? If they didn't, wouldn't it make more sense to pass such laws? If they did, then why do they need a law specifically against bestiality? If the animal is being hurt, don't the existing laws cover it? And if the animal is not being hurt, then how is bestiality fundamentally different in the animal's 'perspective' from the means of artificial insemination which are commonly used in modern animal husbandry?

I do not much care for bestiality, it is a perversion that I'd rather not contemplate. However, I suspect the law that was recently passed was more aimed at human morals than at animal protection. The more I think of it, the more I think it was a victory for the religious rather than for the compassionate.

And, yes, I see your point about the political parties. However, since the politics of the Netherlands have almost no impact on my life, I am almost totally ignorant of them. If your intention was strictly to discuss Dutch politics, then you should have posted on a Dutch forum -- not that there was anything wrong with posting that here, but you should have known it would rapidly go off topic. :P

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
but you should have known it would rapidly go off topic. :P

--Pete

:D Yes I did know this before posting. But I also knew that at least you and kandrathe would honor me with a reply.:)

[Lissa]

Hi,
I prefer to stuff the entrails with the ground up parts of the various beasts and a mixture of herbs and spices. Then a few days or weeks in a cold smoker. Yum! :whistling:

--Pete

No Haggis! <_<

[--Pete]

Hi,

No Haggis! <_<

What's wrong with Haggis? After a few (OK, many) glasses of single malt, it tastes just fine. :lol:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

What is your concern about realizing animals have feelings, emotions and can feel pain, and for that reason try, within reason, not to hurt them without reason?

For example,<blockquote>"My neighbor leaves his dog outside when it's freezing without a dog house or other shelter. Is this animal cruelty?"</blockquote>One person's bleeding heart may not be akin to another's concept of cruelty. Is that dog a Malamute, or Alaskan Huskie? Is dog sledding cruel? How about Skijoring? The dogs seem to be having a blast. What do we mean by "freezing"? 0C or -30C? Most dogs have fur coats for a reason.

Where I live, the law is; <blockquote>"These Minnesota statute comprise the anti-cruelty laws in the state. This section first allows the formation of private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and humane societies and sets forth their obligations by law. "Animal" is defined by this section as every living creature except members of the human race. No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit for labor. Under the neglect component, the statute states that no person shall deprive any animal over which the person has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter, among other things. A person who intentionally violates these provisions where the violation results in substantial bodily harm to a pet or companion animal may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both, with previous convictions resulting in enhanced penalties. A person who intentionally causes death or great bodily harm to a pet or companion animal may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.Minnesota has a unique provision that provides that a person who intentionally causes in death or great bodily harm to a pet or companion animal, and the act is done to threaten, intimidate, or terrorize another person, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than four years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. Animal fighting is also prohibited under this section; engaging in or conducting a fight results in a felony, and attending such fight a misdemeanor. This section also prohibits the docking of horses tails, dying of baby chicks, cruel transportation of animals, as well as greased pig contests and turkey scrambles."</blockquote><!--fontc--><!--/fontc-->"Animal" is every living creature outside of the human race! Wow. No stepping on ants now. My sons pet goldfish died, but I swear it was accidental (or the cat maybe had sushi). Can I euthanize my dog? Can the vet? Who is checking on this stuff? My neighbor's dog hasn't been around lately, should I report them for suspected dog murder?

[Jester]

What's wrong with Haggis? After a few (OK, many) glasses of single malt, it tastes just fine. :lol:

So does tire rubber. Magical stuff, scotch.;)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

<blockquote>" . . . Animal fighting is also prohibited under this section; . . . "</blockquote><!--fontc--><!--/fontc-->

"The only chance a chicken has for a good life in this country is to fight for it." (From memory)

Kidding aside, you bring up some very valid points. Somewhere between the staged animal hunts in the Roman coliseum and the complete protection of animals at the level of the sacred cows of India there is a rational balance. I doubt that balance is struck by either the animal rights activists who get these laws on the books, or the police, prosecuting attorneys, or judges whos business is to uphold these laws.

Is working a working dog cruelty? Ever try to keep a border collie from herding *anything* in sight?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

So does tire rubber. Magical stuff, scotch.;)

Yeah, but the haggis is chewier . ;)

--Pete

[Crusader]

Ahem, from the other Dutchman.

rectification: The VVD is not the "rich man's party". That's left-winged bullcrap. The VVD is a moderately right-winged liberal party. Because it is more stingy with giving out money to all kinds of things, including all kinds of small projects that the left-ish parties want to use to 'help' the poor by giving them all kinds of stuff for free, the VVD is portrayed by left parties as anti-poor, thus only there for the rich party. It's propaganda. Just because you're stingy with money doesn't mean your pro-rich.

That aside, the bestiality topic. the point the CDA and VVD try to make is that the law, as it is composed now, is bullcrap. Strictly taken, under this proposed law, a farmer can't touch the udders of his cow to milk it, because SOMEONE might find that erotic. And if you say "but everyone knows it isn't erotic" you create a problem, because the interpretation what is and isn't erotic varies. Thus the law is impossible to enforce.

[eppie]

Because it is more stingy with giving out money to all kinds of things,

Now that is liberal bullcrap. The whole idea that moderate right wing parties want to keep government spending low. They just want to spend it on other things, like fighter planes and roads. And that is their good right.....I just don't like their complaints that left wing parties spend too much money.

That aside, the bestiality topic. the point the CDA and VVD try to make is that the law, as it is composed now, is bullcrap. Strictly taken, under this proposed law, a farmer can't touch the udders of his cow to milk it, because SOMEONE might find that erotic. And if you say "but everyone knows it isn't erotic" you create a problem, because the interpretation what is and isn't erotic varies. Thus the law is impossible to enforce.

I can tell you that farmers trying to milk their cows will not be in any trouble.
(and anyway this is not relevant because all cow milking is done automatically).

The same goes for anti-pedophilia laws. A mother breastfeeding her baby will not get in trouble. To connect the two thinks is just stupid.


And by the way, how would you envision a court case on this topic? Someone that wants to test this would have to state that he/she thinks manual cow milking is erotic......I don't think anybody would do this.:blink:

[kandrathe]

That aside, the bestiality topic. the point the CDA and VVD try to make is that the law, as it is composed now, is bullcrap. Strictly taken, under this proposed law, a farmer can't touch the udders of his cow to milk it, because SOMEONE might find that erotic. And if you say "but everyone knows it isn't erotic" you create a problem, because the interpretation what is and isn't erotic varies. Thus the law is impossible to enforce.

If milking cows is hard, I imagine artificial insemination is near impossible. I spent a summer working as apprentice to a large animal vet. But, I guess, since we were "doctors", then touching the animals is ok. Good touch. Good touch only!