Here's the standout bit from the latest Harper's Weekly Review:
A Pennsylvania judge ruled that a police officer who orally violated five calves was not guilty of animal cruelty, pointing out that it was impossible to know whether the young cows were "tormented" or "puzzled," or even irritated that the policeman's penis was not actually food. "If the cow had the cognitive ability to form thought and speak," reflected Judge James Moreley, "Would it say, 'Where's the milk? I'm not getting any milk.'"
(A NY Daily News article reports that this happened in New Jersey, not Pennsylvania, and that the Judge's name is Morely, not Moreley, as reported in the Weekly Review. The police officer, Robert Melia Jr., , has also been charged with sexually assaulting three girls.)
RSS Feed
Where's the milk? I'm not getting any milk.
You know I was saying that just the other day. This could explain a few things!
What do you expect? Standing around naked, chewing cud. Those calves were asking for it.
the same could be said for a human child, or a severely mentally handicapped one. does that make it okay in the eyes of this judge?
What a charming man. I can only hope the next cow bites down hard.
He was probably frustrated that he couldn't be in Philadelphia getting his picture taken with a trophy protester.
I find that man so disturbing.
#4: ENTIRELY different. A human might be psychologically damaged from such a thing. Cows don't have the intellect to recognize what was done to them was a violation.
Not comperable.
Considering there are charges pending regarding him assaulting three girls, I'm not really concerned about the calves. I think they'll be just fine.
As creepy as this heifer humper is, it's hard to make a case for animal cruelty compared to the standard practice of castrating cattle without anesthetic. The world now knows he's into bestiality, so it's not like the act was consequence-free.
No, #4 didn't nail it, IMO. By that same logic, slaughtering and eating mentally handicapped kids would be just fine as well.
You can't let a marginal group represent the whole. Most normal kids _would_ be hurt by being raped, and there's no reason to make an exception for those who are handicapped, even if they wouldn't be hurt by it. Just because one person is a masochist doesn't mean torture should be legalized either.
But in the case of bestiality, I see no reason (except archaic sex taboos) that dictates it should always be illegal, because it doesn't seem obvious that it is always harmful to the animal.
Like that guy that who was killed by a horse. I'm pretty sure you can't get a horse to involuntarily mount you.
I find bestiality disgusting, but being disgusting to me isn't alone reason enough in my book to ban it.
My summer camp had calves that we fed by bottle. When calves think they should be getting milk faster than they actually are, they headbutt against the bottle. You learn not to hold the bottle directly in front of your stomach, or risk getting the wind knocked out of you.
It makes me happier to think of this happening to the guy.
Cruel or not, it's a highly unusual ruling, and one the average person in that situation couldn't count on getting.
AlexM, I think Mojave's "you nailed it" was intended for the Agnot's comment (currently at #6). I think the numbering gets screwed up when anonymous comments are held for moderation.
Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped.
Why is there this debate going on about me commenting on the treatment of calves? My comment was on the character of the officer. I really can't see where the confusion lies.
P.S. I had a calf once. His name was beefsteak. (He didn't know what it meant.) I never could accept servings of him at the dinner table like everyone else.
He was likable. And I am sure he would have sucked my penis. But I wasn't that hard up. (No pun intended.)
"If the cow had the cognitive ability to form thought and speak, Would it say, 'Where's the milk? I'm not getting any milk.'"
See, if epistemology professors framed their questions on the nature of consciousness around the question of what a cow thinks when it's sucking cock, they'd get way better class attendance.
Bear in mind that this is just a fragment of a decision, and that judges are often obliged by the particular language of a law to follow seemingly absurd arguments to their logical conclusion. I doubt the judge was secretly thinking, "This calf-fucker is okay by me. How can I help him out?"
I'd see if I could figure out exactly what the story was here, but I'll be damned if I'm going to Google "bestiality + cow + fellatio + legality + New Jersey" at work. ;)
Fair ruling. I very much doubt any harm was done, so the fact that he's now famous as the bestiality guy is more than enough punishment for any wrongdoing.
What I'm curious about is how he got caught, as I imagine that's a funnier story.
Did anyone read the linked article? I mean, WTF?
California firefighters sawed through a dumbbell fastener after a man got his penis stuck in the fastener, where, over several days, it turned black and swelled to five times its original size.
@#1 and #2: God help me, but I can't get that phrase out of my head. Maybe it needs to be a tee-shirt.
#22: If it forces the Kanye meme off the top-spot, I'm good (god help us if they cross-breed, though).
@#23: Might make a change from the "got milk" commercials...
"Where's the milk? I'm not getting any milk."
Wait for it.... wait for it....
Obligatory bad joke out of the way... In my opinion this is without a doubt animal cruelty. The reason that we have laws against animal cruelty isn't for the animal's sake. Though that is a part of it. It's because not physically or sexually mistreating animals makes us better human beings.
One would think this was obvious.
The argument has been put forward that the excuse "they don't understand" would also apply equally well to a human child or someone with a severe mental disability.
So the response is, 'well, that can't be the case, because if that were the only point of contention, slaughtering children would be perfectly acceptable since we slaughter cows.' But this is a logical fallacy, since it assumes a priori that it should be acceptable to slaughter cows. In fact, this is a primary argument against the slaughter of animals, and while you might feel you have other valid reasons for rejecting it, I don't believe it's acceptable to assume your conclusion.
A little more worrying is the comment that cows clearly "don't understand." I wouldn't pretend that cows have the same comprehension of a sex act that a human would, or understand sex in the same way, but if you're going to put forward very specific ideas of how they would or would not feel about it, it'd be nice to back that up with more than "cows can't talk so I assume they can't think." We know that many animals are capable of a surprising amount of cognition, and it's been testable in ways not dependent on speech.
Again, I doubt very much that cows are comparably intelligent to (most) humans, but I think it takes a lot on faith to assume that they have no comprehension of the world around them simply because they can't converse with you. It isn't an assumption I'd feel comfortable making, personally.
My brother once returned home from overseas where he'd been for the past few years and dropped this joke at the family dinner table.
John - "how do you stop a dog from humping your leg"
Mum (looking concerned) - "I'm not sure John, how do you stop a dog from humping your leg?"
John - "Pick it up and suck its dick"
The rest of the meal was charming.
You'll be happy that this indeed did happen.
Link to the article.
I just can't believe thaT NJ DOESN'T see this as a violation on a life. Ok, not as bad as if it was my sister, but I (seriously) want a cow for a pet. If some loser was "manipulating" my family member, I would send Him for a creative punishment.
Wow. that dude is like a living collection of unsafe sex related urban legends. He should probably be getting some serious therapy before his habits get him a Darwin award
#4 here.
let's say, then, that we're talking about a human BABY. it won't remember the occasion, and it's not capable of enough cognition to know what's going on -- or, should i say, we don't *think* it's capable of it, much as we don't *think* it bothers the calf.
so if in theory it doesn't bother a human or a cow baby to let it suck you off, hey, no harm, no foul. should orally violating a calf be less criminal? most people would say yes. but by that same strain of thinking, is is less reprehensible to violate a person whom we think "doesn't know any better?" is orally violating a human baby less harmful/criminal than orally violating an adult?
Yes! Where's the beef??