239
submitted 2 days ago by lavenie@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

These laws need to be revisited. They paid for and shared hardcore CSAM/snuff, with a slim veil of it ackshually being against monkeys and not humans. The guy got caught with regular CSAM as well, women were quoted as projecting their hatred of humans on monkeys, and it can't get more obvious. It's not like these sickos are clever or something, but they found an awkwardly safe grey zone in law to feed their their vile fetishes in a relative safety. That obviously invites a very heated discussion of where and how to draw the line right, and I myself find that if human is to keep being treated differently, at least, there are lotsa details like it being systemic + organized + commercial + international enterprise - all should factor into the sentence, breaking the set limits of just 5 years max for what looks like running a literal baby crushing machine.

The laws are like this because animal agriculture is also a literal baby crushing machine so harsher laws would basically make animal agriculture impossible.

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Couldn't we at least make an exception for when the cruelty is for entertainment?

Animal agriculture is for entertainment of the taste buds, not a necessity. So your denominator would not exclude animal agriculture.

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

"Entertainment" in its usual meaning, like watching something for fun.

[-] lookingforanALFpolycule@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

It makes no difference to the victim for what purpose you torture and kill them

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

This has no relation to the meaning of "entertainment" I'm using.

[-] NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

Does living under deplorable conditions and being killed in a painful way sound better if we say it is for "enjoyment" rather than "entertainment"? 🤔

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I didn't say it sounds better. I'm just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.

I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?

Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

Well, I'll take any protection of living beings I can get.

What is problematic about my food choices? I think they're generally in line with my morals.

You’re arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws banning animal abuse which makes it seem like you consume their products which means you pay for them to abuse animals.

[-] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 minutes ago

I'm not arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws about animal abuse. Here's what I'm saying:

  • Making the law very strict in a way that would make animal agriculture impossible, or its products too expensive, would be politically impossible. People would oppose such changes.
  • But if you make a special case where cruelty just for the sake of cruelty, for entertainment, would be severly punished, I think that would be very much acceptable. I don't imagine that people would oppose that. And that's a win we can take.
  • The bar for "animal abuse" remains unfortunately low for most industries, but we take every win we can get.
  • That doesn't prevent us from continuing to educate people about the realties of human agriculture, and to make people think about their impact on sentient beings' wellbeing and suffering.

And I don't consume animal products.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

animals aren't tortured to death in slaughterhouses. they are killed in compliance with humane slaughter laws.

this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
239 points (99.2% liked)

World News

58438 readers
2084 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS