|
How are people going to enjoy their butter dogs now?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 17 2013 18:37 syno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:26 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:22 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 18:12 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 18:08 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 18:02 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:58 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Lol, ok, didn't know about that. But still, if you wanna compare rape between humans and animals 1 on 1, that's just silly. That's like saying lions are murders and they deserve to die, or atleast like 20 years in jail. And hyenas are robbers, they should be in jail aswell. Are ants that invade termite mounds and eat their children guilty of war crimes? The difference is, we have a big brain, we are far more intelligent than any other animal. We don't just have to follow our instinct. We should know what's good and what's bad. And our big brains have decided that industrialised food production, with all its animal abuse, is good. It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to? So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it? I just don't buy that. Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that. Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper). It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick. If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed. Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law. Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong.
You're justifying your argument with "digging up rotting corpses is logical"? Ok dear.
|
On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc.
But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural?
You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
|
On June 17 2013 18:37 syno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:26 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:22 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 18:12 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 18:08 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 18:02 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:58 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Lol, ok, didn't know about that. But still, if you wanna compare rape between humans and animals 1 on 1, that's just silly. That's like saying lions are murders and they deserve to die, or atleast like 20 years in jail. And hyenas are robbers, they should be in jail aswell. Are ants that invade termite mounds and eat their children guilty of war crimes? The difference is, we have a big brain, we are far more intelligent than any other animal. We don't just have to follow our instinct. We should know what's good and what's bad. And our big brains have decided that industrialised food production, with all its animal abuse, is good. It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to? So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it? I just don't buy that. Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that. Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper). It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick. If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed. Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law. Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong.
Mh wouldn't you be hurt if someone unburried your beloved grandma to fuck her eyesocket ?
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Here's dictionary.com for you.
Nature:
1.
the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
existing independently of human activities.
We done here?
|
On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Actually no, the term natural indicates everything that happens outside of human interferance.
edit: should have read last comment before I posted.
|
On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then?
The argumentum ad naturam is an old fallacy. The concept of nature is vague and even if people could agree on something being natural, what should follow from it? Nothing.
|
On June 17 2013 18:42 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:37 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:22 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 18:12 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 18:08 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 18:02 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:58 syno wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Lol, ok, didn't know about that. But still, if you wanna compare rape between humans and animals 1 on 1, that's just silly. That's like saying lions are murders and they deserve to die, or atleast like 20 years in jail. And hyenas are robbers, they should be in jail aswell. Are ants that invade termite mounds and eat their children guilty of war crimes? The difference is, we have a big brain, we are far more intelligent than any other animal. We don't just have to follow our instinct. We should know what's good and what's bad. And our big brains have decided that industrialised food production, with all its animal abuse, is good. It's quite good for the wallet. Yes, that's egoistic, but i guess that's how we humans are. Do you eat meat and eggs? If yes, would you be ready to pay ALOT more for those things if the animals lived a life like they're "supposed" to? So greed is legit, hedonistic consumption of meat is legit but god forbid you stick your dick in it without harming it? I just don't buy that. Well I guess we could discuss this topic for ages, none of us will change his opinion on that. Like I said, you are right on paper, but IMHO on things like this you have to make rules based on feelings. And I have to agree with sweden in this case, this is wrong and should not be tollerated (even if it's not on paper). It's why I hope you/others making the same argument never have any responsibility. It's been gone over again and again how dangerous it is to make rules based on 'feelings' and disregarding logic you admit yourself exists. Ick. If you'd make all laws based on logic, you could also legalize things like necrophilia. Go ahead, unborrow all the corpses and have sex with them, because hey, no one will be harmed. Sometimes it's not that bad if you put a touch of humanity in the law. Oh and I think i handle my responsibilities pretty good. I'm not a robot who creates rules for everything, i make most of my decisions based on my gut feeling, and i was never terribly wrong. You're justifying your argument with "digging up rotting corpses is logical"? Ok dear.
That was just an extreme example.
You're saying the animal is not harmed when you fuck it.
Neither is a rotting corpse.
Some people like fucking animals, some people like fucking rotten corpses.
Isn't that the same case, in a weird way?
Again, this is just an extreme example.
Ofc friends and families are harmed when this happens.
|
On June 17 2013 18:44 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally. Here's dictionary.com for you. Nature: 1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities. existing independently of human activities.We done here?
Really?
Nature?
Why didnt you google natural? You are obviously trying hard to make me look stupid for no particular reason.
nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature:
Look I know what you are saying, im not an idiot. My point is: if you make thing too relative, they lose meaning and arguing about them is nonsensical. We are arguing semantics.
EDIT: we arent arguing semantics but its silly nontheless
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally.
Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me.
What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance.
|
On June 17 2013 18:55 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally. Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me. What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance.
Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural.
If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead.
Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 17 2013 19:04 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 18:55 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:42 Nyovne wrote:
I've at the very least seen dogs, cats, rabits and a horse jump on and ride other creatures. Please explain this with it being unnatural. Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally. Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me. What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance. Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural. If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead. Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that.
Sodomic is merely a description and you've not really made an argument for why it's immoral...
|
On June 17 2013 19:11 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 19:04 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:55 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2013 17:55 NukeD wrote:
[quote]
Would you really call that natural tho? If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally. Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me. What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance. Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural. If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead. Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that. Sodomic is merely a description and you've not really made an argument for why it's immoral...
I have not made that argument and I will not. Ive just expressed my own feelings about the issue and my own views of what immoral or not. I wasnt about to declare it universally immoral
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 17 2013 19:24 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 19:11 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 19:04 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:55 Nyovne wrote:On June 17 2013 18:42 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:36 NTTemplar wrote:On June 17 2013 18:31 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 18:27 marvellosity wrote:On June 17 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:On June 17 2013 17:57 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If we're not calling what animals do to other animals without human interference natural then what are we calling it? Unnatural. Does chimpanzee fucking a frog really make inerspecies sex natural? Pretty much by definition, yes, yes it does. I think you are taking that term to literally. EDIT: If we agree that everything that happens in nature is natural than i agree with you. But why do we then even distinct those two terms, natural/unnatural? What would you say is unnatural then? The atomic bomb, selective breeding, cities etc. But hey, humans are part of nature too. How can we do anything that is unnatural? You see my point here? You obviously CAN take the term too literally. Exactly, humans are a part of nature and as such human behaviour is natural. Hence following your own statement, a human being having sex with an animal is natural. Such people, as an unaltered naturally appearing member of our race, have the urge to commit such acts. What can possibly be unnatural about that? I mean the fact that it appears to be evolutionairy or biologically retarded hardly makes it unnatural to me. What is unnatural in my opinion is the interfering in natural processses with created means not inherent to a species. Such as genetic manipulation. Tools are an unnatural phenomenon as well as they do not naturally occur and require labour to create. This does not make the use of tools unnatural however as this is exibited as self occurring behaviour by several species without interferance. Ok. I have clearly dug a hole for my self when i used the word natural. If I had known a word that I could use to describe "evolutionairy or biologically retarded" I would have used that instead. Bottom line of why I think bestiallity is wrong is it being sodomic and unmoral. And I really dont want to come into argument about what and when is something being sodomic cos there is obviously not a clear definition on that. Sodomic is merely a description and you've not really made an argument for why it's immoral... I have not made that argument and I will not. Ive just expressed my own feelings about the issue and my own views of what immoral or not. I wasnt about to declare it universally immoral
I find your existence immoral.
That was a worthy point wasn't it
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
And this is where it gets petty. Lets not.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 17 2013 19:36 Nyovne wrote:
And this is where it gets petty. Lets not.
I don't even have particularly strong viewpoints on the topic, but the whole thread is rife with people going "this is OBVIOUSLY wrong, this is immoral, do I even need to EXPLAIN why", but none of them really can explain why it's any of these things.
At least man up and just say that you find it disgusting, and that's pretty much the only basis that you want it to be illegal (i'm using a general 'you' here).
|
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
Agreed.
|
come on, that nature/natural shit is not even the issue.
evolution was always forced upon nature. evolution was always forced upon people. from an evolutionary perspective, freedom never existed. laws don't change happenings, they only punish them or hide them.
being legal to fuck a dog or being illegal to fuck a dog is inconsequential to the dude in his house/barn doing his dog. he doesn't care. he will fuck it, with or without the law. HE IS FREE.
- will this law help making bestiality less mainstream/more taboo?, ofc
- will this law help sexually confused people through their sexually challenging years?, ofc
i'll take those over freedom any day.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 17 2013 20:11 xM(Z wrote:
come on, that nature/natural shit is not even the issue.
evolution was always forced upon nature. evolution was always forced upon people. from an evolutionary perspective, freedom never existed. laws don't change happenings, they only punish them or hide them.
being legal to fuck a dog or being illegal to fuck a dog is inconsequential to the dude in his house/barn doing his dog. he doesn't care. he will fuck it, with or without the law. HE IS FREE.
- will this law help making bestiality less mainstream/more taboo?, ofc
- will this law help sexually confused people through their sexually challenging years?, ofc
i'll take those over freedom any day.
Bestiality is already extremely taboo (just read this thread...) and couldn't be further from mainstream. I'm also struggling massively to see how this will help sexually confused people. Do you have any basis for saying any of these things, especially with "ofc"?
edit: I somehow think I'm being trolled, re-reading the "I'll take these over freedom any day". Huh :/
On June 17 2013 20:09 syno wrote:
Meh, i hate saying this, but I guess you (mostly marvellosity and KwarK) are right.
It is (imo) fucked up and disgusting, but that should not be the foundation of a law. I got it now, finally.
O.o The rare sight in nature (^_^) of the species known as "human" altering their viewpoint after vigorous discourse.
edit: I'm also not going to be sticking my junk in any animal in my lifetime, just so we're clear ;p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
