NMP Thio Makes 2nd Police Report
-
The similarity seems to lie in the fact that all four are considered sexually deviant behaviours. Apart from this matter of classification, what makes them similar?Originally posted by Icemoon:Because the arguments are similar. The govt will be inconsistent if they repeal 377A but not those said laws. -
Explain why it would be inconsistent.Originally posted by Icemoon:Because the arguments are similar. The govt will be inconsistent if they repeal 377A but not those said laws. -
Nope, I never said they are sexually deviant. This is the religious argument which we are trying to avoid .. isn't it?Originally posted by Gedanken:The similarity seems to lie in the fact that all four are considered sexually deviant behaviours. Apart from this matter of classification, what makes them similar?
They are similar because
1. No harm is caused to either party.
2. Acts are essentially private. -
done in my reply to Ged.Originally posted by crosshairs:Explain why it would be inconsistent. -
You refered to the repeal of 377A as a basis for progessive repeals of other laws, I provided the reasons why that would not happen due to the nature of the act. If you are not clear on the direction of the discussion, please sound off. Striking an own goal whilst in a cloud of confusion is not a win.Originally posted by Icemoon:1. Huh? What are you talking about? Why on guard? There is still the rape or molest laws to protect the female party isn't it? Huh? What scientific basis for sexual attraction to close relative? Surely there is scientific basis for sexual attraction between different genders isn't it?
Why no comments? Isn't this the crux of the issue? Isn't the progressive acceptance of gay coupling given full rights of a heterosexual union the basis of your discussion and the source of your discontent? Why are you silent on it now?
2. No comments.
Preview? What preview? What animal law? What no harm caused to animals? If someone has intercourse with you without your explicit consent is that not an offence? Or when a doubt exists to whether the party being exploited has the ability and sound judgement to give consent in the first place, like in the case of the underaged? Dogs bark and whimper all the time you think they are asking you to have intercourse with them without a reasonable doubt? With regards to this particular paragraph you have posted, I urge you to keep within the scope of discussion and refrain from making a mockery out of your own concerns about the direction the society is about to take. And please leave those poor animals alone.
3. But protecting animals come under the preview of animal laws isn't it? I mean those laws that fine you if you are seen causing harm to animals. If I can prove that no harm is caused to the animal .. why shouldn't beastality be allowed? Maybe the dog goes oww oww like a zhabor. -
1) Sexual contact between close members will increase by many folds the chances of a defective gene to be passed on to the next generation. Harm IS caused.Originally posted by Icemoon:Nope, I never said they are sexually deviant. This is the religious argument which we are trying to avoid .. isn't it?
They are similar because
1. No harm is caused to either party.
2. Acts are essentially private.
2) Refering to 1) private acts of illegal abortion is also private thus making this point redundant. -
And it would do your arguments more justice if you would kindly wipe that smiley face off your posts. It reflects plenty on how serious you are about a discussion.
-
Hmm, well with necrophilia I expect that nothing worse could really be done to the stiff, but with incest and beastiality there is potential for harm as crosshairs has pointed out. Genetic disorders associated with inbreeding certainly constitute harm, and there's no possibility of consent where animals are concerned. That being the case, there's inadequate grounds for considering beastiality and incest along with homosexuality in this case.Originally posted by Icemoon:Nope, I never said they are sexually deviant. This is the religious argument which we are trying to avoid .. isn't it?
They are similar because
1. No harm is caused to either party.
2. Acts are essentially private. -
But harm to animals *should not* come under beastality isn't it? Furthermore sexual intercourse by itself does not constitute a harmful action.Originally posted by crosshairs:Preview? What preview? What animal law? What no harm caused to animals? If someone has intercourse with you without your explicit consent is that not an offence? Or when a doubt exists to whether the party being exploited has the ability and sound judgement to give consent in the first place, like in the case of the underaged? Dogs bark and whimper all the time you think they are asking you to have intercourse with them without a reasonable doubt? With regards to this particular paragraph you have posted, I urge you to keep within the scope of discussion and refrain from making a mockery out of your own concerns about the direction the society is about to take. And please leave those poor animals alone.
The law about underage sex is also ridiculous. If defense can prove the "victim" has the ability to give sound judgement, why should the adult be prosecuted? -
1. What rubbish? Going by your argument, if someone can prove homosexual acts will increase the chance of tiok HIV, then must outlaw homosexual acts ah?Originally posted by crosshairs:1) Sexual contact between close members will increase by many folds the chances of a defective gene to be passed on to the next generation. Harm IS caused.
2) Refering to 1) private acts of illegal abortion is also private thus making this point redundant.
2). huh? -
I am as serious as I can be.Originally posted by crosshairs:And it would do your arguments more justice if you would kindly wipe that smiley face off your posts. It reflects plenty on how serious you are about a discussion.
And still try to be cordial.
See .. I haven't start calling you names right? -
The issue with animals is tricky. What is consent to an animal? What constitute consent? Lack of struggle? After all, we humans struggle if we get tied up, molested etc. Furthermore if you own a dog, you have certain rights over it. You can sell it, shower it, let it wear fanciful clothes etc. Will a dog consent to you giving it a shower, by the way?Originally posted by Gedanken:Hmm, well with necrophilia I expect that nothing worse could really be done to the stiff, but with incest and beastiality there is potential for harm as crosshairs has pointed out. Genetic disorders associated with inbreeding certainly constitute harm, and there's no possibility of consent where animals are concerned. That being the case, there's inadequate grounds for considering beastiality and incest along with homosexuality in this case.
If there is no possibility of consent where animals are concerned, then consent should not be the criteria to judge whether the action is criminal. Harm should be the criteria, agree? -
How would the defense prove that?Originally posted by Icemoon:If defense can prove the "victim" has the ability to give sound judgement, why should the adult be prosecuted? -
If there is potential for harm, then the way to go is to encourage people to practise safe sex.Originally posted by Gedanken:Hmm, well with necrophilia I expect that nothing worse could really be done to the stiff, but with incest and beastiality there is potential for harm as crosshairs has pointed out. Genetic disorders associated with inbreeding certainly constitute harm -
My view .. I'm not a lawyer anyway:Originally posted by Gedanken:How would the defense prove that?
1. The girl's behaviour .. like she is a wanton girl? With multiple underage bfs.
2. Seduction. lol
I think the point is to discredit her (like 1), then the defense argument will carry more weight. -
There can be no sound and logical debate with a goal post shifting individual who does not recognise the very real danger of inbreeding and it's effects on innocent children.Originally posted by Icemoon:1. What rubbish? Going by your argument, if someone can prove homosexual acts will increase the chance of tiok HIV, then must outlaw homosexual acts ah? -
I'm not saying there is no danger from the 'accidental' inbreeding.Originally posted by crosshairs:There can be no sound and logical debate with a goal post shifting individual who does not recognise the very real danger of inbreeding and it's effects on innocent children.
But this argument does not stand 'cos the act itself does not lead naturally to inbreeding, just like gambling does not lead naturally to family breakdown, or sex with strangers in HIV-infested countries like Africa lead to AIDS.
Have to clarify a bit. The law defines the act as essentially an act of penetration. So I'm justified to say the act itself does not lead naturally to inbreeding.
If you worry about innocent children, shouldn't it be criminal as well to have sex with a person you know is HIV-infected? (I know no idiot will risk his life this way, so I hope it is clear that I'm talking about protected sex here)
Furthermore, does it mean that if I can prove there is no chance of inbreeding, then the act is not criminal?
Remember we are talking about consensual act between two mature adults behind closed doors. -
If the girl does exhibit such abberrant behaviour, would it not be judged that she does not have sound judgement?Originally posted by Icemoon:My view .. I'm not a lawyer anyway:
1. The girl's behaviour .. like she is a wanton girl? With multiple underage bfs.
2. Seduction. lol
I think the point is to discredit her (like 1), then the defense argument will carry more weight.
Yes, attacking the witness is a common tactic for the defense against sexual assault charges. However, according to Section 375, rape is committed when the defendant has intercourse with a girl under the age of 14, regardless of consent. After a bit of digging around, the impression I get is that the age of consent is a figure arbitrarily set, and in some systems the figures were set in the late 1800s. However, if you consider research into cognitive development, the ability to provide consent comes about after the age of 15 or 16 (depending on whose research you read), so 14 is in fact a liberal standard. -
I think it's interesting that you should hold this opinion, especially since Section 377 states:Originally posted by Icemoon:I think the arguments made for homosexuality can be used to support the repeal of laws concerning bestiality, necrophilia and incest too.
Homosexuality is definitely not against nature because:
1. the behaviour seems to be quite rampant in the animal kingdom.
2. there is no natural obstruction to deter homosexual acts. Like .. I suck your dick .. you feel shiok right? I poke your backside you feel shiok right? In fact, homosexual acts seem to provide faster, instant gratification compared to heterosexual acts.Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
That being the case, you should logically be arguing for repeal of 377A. -
Me a bit confused liao.Originally posted by Gedanken:If the girl does exhibit such abberrant behaviour, would it not be judged that she does not have sound judgement?
'cos how come adults with identical abberrant behaviour are considered to have sound judgement but not for underage girls?
The logical relationship -> if you exhibit such abberrant behaviour, you do not have sound judgement.
Similarly -> if you have sound judgement, you will not exhibit such abberrant behaviour.
See .. it is a reductio ad absurdum if we apply it to adults.
-
I'm not sure how they define this order of nature.Originally posted by Gedanken:That being the case, you should logically be arguing for repeal of 377A.
I mean to say, we are not alone in the animal kingdom in having gays.
Perhaps the order of nature refers to the order of nature for man, rather than the animal kingdom. -
You've lost me there.Originally posted by Icemoon:Me a bit confused liao.
'cos how come adults with identical abberrant behaviour are considered to have sound judgement but not for underage girls?
The logical relationship -> if you exhibit such abberrant behaviour, you do not have sound judgement.
Similarly -> if you have sound judgement, you will not exhibit such abberrant behaviour.
See .. it is a reductio ad absurdum if we apply it to adults.
Yes, such abberrant behaviourreflects lack of sound judgement. What part of that doesn't add up?
-
Well, that's the precise wording of 377.Originally posted by Icemoon:I'm not sure how they define this order of nature.
I mean to say, we are not alone in the animal kingdom in having gays.
Perhaps the order of nature refers to the order of nature for man, rather than the animal kingdom.
If, as you say, we are not alone in the animal kingdom in having gays, there's no utility in making the distinction between the order of nature for man and animals, is there? -
I think a distinction has to be made. The order of nature for man should be different from the order of nature for animals.Originally posted by Gedanken:Well, that's the precise wording of 377.
If, as you say, we are not alone in the animal kingdom in having gays, there's no utility in making the distinction between the order of nature for man and animals, is there?
The predatory behaviour of certain species of animals, where fratricide is not against the order of nature, is a sign that a distinction has already been made. -
The term 'sound judgement' was first used by Crosshairs. I quote him:Originally posted by Gedanken:You've lost me there.
Yes, such abberrant behaviourreflects lack of sound judgement. What part of that doesn't add up?If someone has intercourse with you without your explicit consent is that not an offence? Or when a doubt exists to whether the party being exploited has the ability and sound judgement to give consent in the first place, like in the case of the underaged?
If abberrant behaviour reflect lack of sound judgement, how is it that adults with abberrant behaviour are still deem to have sound judgement?
Note that in Crosshairs' reply, it is implicit that adults have the ability and sound judgement to give consent, is it not?