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.
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?
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.
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.
“Entertainment” in its usual meaning, like watching something for fun.
It makes no difference to the victim for what purpose you torture and kill them
This has no relation to the meaning of “entertainment” I’m using.
Does living under deplorable conditions and being killed in a painful way sound better if we say it is for “enjoyment” rather than “entertainment”? 🤔
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?
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.