← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 19637 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2005-08-14
2005-08-14 08:26 | User Profile
Man charged with rabbit rape and sadistic rape-murder of 17 other rabbits.
SYDNEY: A man faced an Australian court yesterday charged with having sexual relations with a rabbit and the sadistic killing of 17 other rabbits whose carcasses were found dumped in a lane. Brendan Francis McMahon, 36, North Sydney, appeared briefly before a Court Magistrate yesterday charged with having allegedly committed the offences. Alarmed at the continuing discovery of freshly killed rabbits, some whose genitalia had allegedly been mutilated, detectives began contacting city pet stores to determine who had been buying rabbits. He was charged with committing an act of bestiality with an animal.
[url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3376275a11,00.html[/url]
Were these male or female rabbits?
2005-08-14 08:57 | User Profile
Someone shoot that bastard! :furious:
2005-08-14 09:20 | User Profile
Disgusting if true, but note the ".nz" web address. Aussies may give us New Zealanders a ribbing with the slanderous anti-Kiwitic "sheep libel" but they only have to log on to an overseas website to find out the shocking truth about their revolting rabbit-rutting ways!
2005-08-14 15:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Someone shoot that bastard! :furious:[/QUOTE] If you reject transcendent authority on what basis can you even say bestiality is wrong? Even if you posit some secular pablum about "cruelty to animals" (leaving aside for the moment that such "ethics" are completely arbitrary) then you can't be consistent about opposing bestiality without also opposing ANY form of harm to animals. That includes hunting, fishing, meat-eating, etc. But if you acknowledge God's authority then you have a whole different ball game. I oppose bestiality because God commanded me to do so. No other basis will withstand erosion by "situational morality."
2005-08-14 15:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=aimshi]If you reject transcendent authority on what basis can you even say bestiality is wrong? Even if you posit some secular pablum about "cruelty to animals" (leaving aside for the moment that such "ethics" are completely arbitrary) then you can't be consistent about opposing bestiality without also opposing ANY form of harm to animals. That includes hunting, fishing, meat-eating, etc. But if you acknowledge God's authority then you have a whole different ball game. I oppose bestiality because God commanded me to do so. No other basis will withstand erosion by "situational morality."[/QUOTE]I say it's wrong because I feel it's wrong. That's the only "authority" I need. If it upsets me, then to me it's wrong. It's my conscience that I'm following.
BTW, how do you know that God has commanded you to do anything? Because you read it in a book? How do you know that God had anything to do with that book?
FYI: I don't have a problem with responsible hunting, fishing, or the use of animals for food. I only have a problem with people being deliberately cruel to animals. So do a lot of people. Why? There might be some evolutionary instinct in humans that "recognizes" that people who are cruel to animals are more likely to harm people without cause; our genes "want" to preempt that sort of behavior in a social context to aid mutual survival. That's an issue too complicated to discuss here. Whatever the case, I don't need to know the exact reason I don't like it; I know for a fact that I don't, and that's all I need to know.
2005-08-14 15:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I say it's wrong because I feel it's wrong. That's the only "authority" I need. If it upsets me, then to me it's wrong. It's my conscience that I'm following. You have said that people who commit bestiality should be shot. Your only authority for such a capital judgement is that you are upset? Let's say that people who promote atheism upset me. Am I justified in shooting them as a result? If not why not? Just to make sure you know I'm not making an argument here to shoot people for promoting atheism. I'm just using this as an example to make a point.
BTW, how do you know that God has commanded you to do anything? Because you read it in a book? How do you know that God had anything to do with that book? Yes and on top of overwhelming evidence on many levels, it is self-evident to begin with. In the same way that our God-given rights are self evident. FYI: I don't have a problem with responsible hunting, fishing, or the use of animals for food. I only have a problem with people being deliberately cruel to animals. So if this man committed bestiality without wanting to be cruel to the animal in question, what's your problem? The dubious morality of "situation" strikes again.
2005-08-15 10:00 | User Profile
You can't respond because you've been suspended, but I'll reply to this anyway.
[QUOTE=aimshi]You have said that people who commit bestiality should be shot. Your only authority for such a capital judgement is that you are upset? Bestiality or any other kind of torture of animals. Yes, my only authority for feeling that they should be shot is that they upset me. That's it. I can't prove any higher authority than that.
Let's say that people who promote atheism upset me. Am I justified in shooting them as a result? If not why not? Just to make sure you know I'm not making an argument here to shoot people for promoting atheism. I'm just using this as an example to make a point. In my book, you would certainly not be justified. In someone else's book, you might be. It depends on what a person believes and what principles he holds to.
All of this, of course, ignores the issue of consequences (e.g., the animal-torturer or atheist shooting back, or the cops looking for you). But that's not really relevant to morality except in the sense that what is deemed "moral" generally depends on what instincts of right and wrong overlap among the majority, which then often leads to enforcement.
Yes and on top of overwhelming evidence on many levels, it is self-evident to begin with. In the same way that our God-given rights are self evident. There is no evidence at all that God has commanded men to do anything, let alone "overwhelming evidence." All that exists are writings made by men who claim (or who were claimed by other men) to have been inspired by God. Claims are cheap. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So if this man committed bestiality without wanting to be cruel to the animal in question, what's your problem? The dubious morality of "situation" strikes again.[/QUOTE]If he let the animal screw him such that there was no suffering on the part of the animal, then I would still think his actions were disgusting and idiotic; however, I wouldn't feel that he deserved to die for deliberate cruelty.
2005-08-16 00:28 | User Profile
Unlike Jeffery Dahmer, had his victims, the rabbits been in the fridge and he claimed he was having them for dinner soon, no one would have been any the wiser. No crime to eat rabbits, eh?
Must say I am unimpressed with his meat tenderizing technique. Angler's right. If the DNA comes back that his seed is in the rabbits, one bullet.
AE
[QUOTE=Faust]Man charged with rabbit rape and sadistic rape-murder of 17 other rabbits.
SYDNEY: A man faced an Australian court yesterday charged with having sexual relations with a rabbit and the sadistic killing of 17 other rabbits whose carcasses were found dumped in a lane. Brendan Francis McMahon, 36, North Sydney, appeared briefly before a Court Magistrate yesterday charged with having allegedly committed the offences. Alarmed at the continuing discovery of freshly killed rabbits, some whose genitalia had allegedly been mutilated, detectives began contacting city pet stores to determine who had been buying rabbits. He was charged with committing an act of bestiality with an animal.
[url="http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3376275a11,00.html"]http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3376275a11,00.html[/url]
Were these male or female rabbits?[/QUOTE]
2005-08-16 00:54 | User Profile
I can only fugure that a man who would "rabbit rape and sadistic rape-murder" a bunch of rabbits is someone who you would want to keep your children away from, especially young boys. Whatever the maximum penalty under the law, it should be applied, if he's guilty?
2005-08-16 01:11 | User Profile
Hummmmmmmm better check my chickens a little bit better before I take them out of the store.
2005-08-20 09:14 | User Profile
New Zealand: Alleged rabbit abuser has mental problems - lawyer
Brendan Francis McMahon, an Auckland-born finance broker charged with bestiality and aggravated cruelty after 17 dead rabbits and a guinea pig were found in and around his Sydney office has mental health problems brought on by illegal drug dependency, his lawyer said.
[url]http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3383139a11,00.html[/url]
2005-08-20 21:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]New Zealand: Alleged rabbit abuser has mental problems - lawyer
Brendan Francis McMahon, an Auckland-born finance broker charged with bestiality and aggravated cruelty after 17 dead rabbits and a guinea pig were found in and around his Sydney office has mental health problems brought on by illegal drug dependency, his lawyer said.
[url="http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3383139a11,00.html"]http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3383139a11,00.html[/url][/QUOTE] He's a Kiwi? Oh the shame!
I bet he's a meth addict.