[BoxFour]

> There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals.

What I said, verbatim, about that case.

What part of that is incorrect or warrants clarification, exactly?

[Dylan16807]

Using the legal definition of "abuse", yes it was illegal to sexually abuse animals. Their actions didn't qualify. That's what warrants clarification here.

I appreciate your definition of abuse here but it's confusing in a discussion about legality.

[BoxFour]

> yes it was illegal to sexually abuse animals

No, it wasn't. The laws are quite explicit about what "abuse" means, and if you take a gander at most laws (including Washington state's circa 2000 or so) in the context of animals it usually explicitly refers to physical harm (for example, mutilation) or improper living conditions. Charging them under Washington's existing abuse laws would've required the animal to be physically injured, which it wasn't. It's quite literally why they had to pass a new law.

I don't know why I have to explain this, but:

1) Sexual abuse can occur without physical harm or injury.

2) Beastiality is sexual abuse.

[Izkata]

#2 can be split into two sides, and not everyone believes one of those is sexual abuse.

Edit: Removed video link because the second half was gross and unrelated. May try finding another clip, but the first half was of Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks about a decade ago saying he'd legalize cases where the person pleasured the animal.

Edit2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QUUcQqBkJA

[BoxFour]

I'll be blunt: I don't really feel the need to argue about that point. It's sexual abuse.

[Dylan16807]

And my point is that sexual abuse is a subcategory of abuse.

You didn't imply until now that I was wrong about animal abuse already being illegal. In that case, a bestiality law doesn't fix the actual problem, right? It's a band-aid partial fix.

[BoxFour]

I'm not sure what your point is, to be blunt. It seems like you wanted to make some weird argument about the semantics of the word "abuse", and are now implying one of:

1) Beastiality isn't sexual abuse

2) Beastiality laws are pointless because it was already illegal under existing abuse laws (it wasn't, as we've repeatedly discussed)

3) Sexual abuse requires physical harm

all of which are pretty gross (1,3) and/or pointless (2). I don't really feel the need to argue any of this any further, so I'll leave you to it.

[Dylan16807]

You got 2 wrong. It's: 2) If the existing abuse law doesn't include sexual abuse, we need to fix that law, not add a new one.

And that's not a pointless argument. If we're still allowing the whole category of non-physical abuse to animals, except for bestiality, that's a terrible job of lawmaking.

And just on a tangent here now that I'm reading the law they added, does it really make sense to have a blanket exemption for "accepted animal husbandry practices"? Some of those procedures are just as exploitative and unnecessary. It makes me think this law isn't putting animal welfare first.

[sabrehagen]

This thread is one for the archives...