|
On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from.
Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten.
Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
|
On June 14 2013 18:18 syno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from. Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
because it's good to question things in life.
|
|
|
On June 14 2013 18:20 Mercurial wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:18 syno wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from. Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong. because it's good to question things in life.
like if fucking a goat is a good thing or not.
|
On June 14 2013 18:18 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:09 namste wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote:
This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions. I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok. So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
You sir, are too obvious at trolling. Or mentally ill.
|
United States43136 Posts
On June 14 2013 18:18 syno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from. Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too.
|
On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:31 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 17:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote:
Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier. We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard! Make love? LOL you're ridiculous! lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens. I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that! You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments.
The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
|
On June 14 2013 18:18 syno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from. Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
So responding to gastrointestinal impulses and self preservation instincts is nature, but acting out sexual desires is just sick and wrong?
It's all nature and that's never a justification for anything in the first place anyway....
You piss me off I'll break your skull open with a hammer, problem with that?
ITS NATURE BRO
|
On June 14 2013 18:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:12 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:00 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:43 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. o.O this doesn't sound like your typical overly-sarcastic post that says the complete opposite of what you believe in an effort to emphasise how stupid that line of thinking is. Bolded section is only thing that makes me still think this is a joke but tone is hard to detect on the internet.... Reading the following post I can only assume this is how you really feel about the issue ???  Murder of people is wrong, slaughter of animals is fine, the reason for this is that our system or morality puts value on sentience and we have it and they don't. We outrank them. No people are being harmed and this is in the bedroom between consenting adults and what we view legally as little more than biological machines for creating meat and other animal products, I'd much rather the law accepted that it simply had no place in the bedroom that going after things that the vast majority can hate on. Take gay sex. It's not fine because it's two consenting adults, it's fine because no-one is getting harmed because they're two consenting adults. The fact that consenting adults are involved doesn't necessarily make something fine, rather it is the lack of harm that makes it fine and the consent is relevant because it indicates a lack of harm. A man fucking a dog is fine for the exact same reason as gay sex, because no-one is getting harmed. The law has no place in the bedroom outside of protecting people and the previous laws already covered that. This is just picking a sexual niche and outlawing it for no reason, the previous law even covered the animal cruelty aspect, this law only criminalises no cruel beastiality. but a person can tell you if he likes it or not/if you harm him or not/, with animals you just assume; based on? ... you being (part) animal, science?. any reason you invoke, it'll still be a 2nd or 3rd party making the calls for animals. Getting a dog to mount someone they don't want to mount is hard work. Also we don't care whether dogs like the taste of dog food or like herding sheep, they're a tool. If we're caring about this then we should care about it universally, caring about it when someone else wants to fuck them and suddenly not caring about it when you want to eat them is a massive hypocrisy, you don't really care about it, you just want your thing to be protected and their thing not to be.
so you are fine with killing them as well as protecting/fucking them as long as we call ourselves hypocrites?. that's not really a point 
making any decision for animals it's hypocritical by default so again, what's your point?.
|
On June 14 2013 18:18 syno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from. Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong.
...you realize alot of people would say the same about same-sex marriage, right? Opinions vary - and yeah, it is important to question your standards every now and then
|
Kwark I would say that is no way for a mod to behave really. That was really imature. The other guy wasnt offensive at all but even if he was you went overboard.
|
On June 14 2013 18:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:18 syno wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from. Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong. Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too.
While i agree that's not how nature worked before we got brains, that has atleast a reason. Chickens can lay eggs. Milk is needed for so many things.
What's your reason for fucking animals?
|
United States43136 Posts
On June 14 2013 18:26 NukeD wrote:
Kwark I would say that is no way for a mod to behave really. That was really imature. The other guy wasnt offensive at all but even if he was you went overboard.
He accused me of being fine with raping a girl because I said that animals are outranked by people.
|
On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:31 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 17:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:15 wozzot wrote:
Eh, as long as I can still eat meat. I don't think animals can consent to being eaten either but whatever Yeah this is the really funny thing and nttea mentioned it earlier. We can enslave and/or consume them but make love to them? You sick bastard! Make love? LOL you're ridiculous! lol it might sound funny but I watched a documentary on this sort of thing and I've seen videos on the internet that confirm some people do genuinely make love to animals, whether you can imagine yourself doing so or not is irrelevant, it happens. I didn't think it was possible, but you just manage to be more ridiculous than your earlier post? Make love? Shall we go now and interview "couples" engaged in bestiality and ask how much they love each other to really feel the need to... make LOVE!!! lol how stupid is that! You obviously know nothing about this topic so do us all a favour and stop posting asinine comments. The most failed attempt at recovering from a stupid claim that people and animals can in fact make love.
Good lord making love is an expression synonymous with having sex, but usually implies an emotional connection or meaning behind the action than simply having sex.
Do you accept some people love animals?
Do you accept some people have sex with animals?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes then why is it so difficult for your infant mind to wrap itself around the concept that some people consider their intimate relations with an animal to be love making?
Seriously, stop being a massive penis.
|
On June 14 2013 18:18 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:09 namste wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 Laserist wrote:
This is the creepiest thread that I ever saw. Strange people, strange discussions. I second that. Really freaking strange if people say that banging non-human animals is ok. So fucking them without harming them (which is what this law outlaws) should be punished(and while you didn't say it, someone brought up that consent apparently matters here) But factory farming and then slaughtering them just for the pleasure of EATING THEIR FLESH is obviously ok? What the fuck you really have to start thinking about what guides your sense of morality.
how can you justify bestiality by the fact that we breed them for food? you know that its just easier and more efficient to do that than to run around chasing them for hundreds of miles right. like somehow hunting them then eating them is more acceptable than breeding them then eating them.
maybe we should all hunt our own food from now on and people can fuck elephants in their free time, except that there wouldnt be any free time because we'd be running around chasing them.
|
United States43136 Posts
On June 14 2013 18:27 syno wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 18:23 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:18 syno wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:15 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:11 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:09 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 18:05 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 17:51 Calliopee wrote:On June 14 2013 17:38 KwarK wrote:
I strongly disagree with this change, if no animal is being harmed then who gives a fuck, people outrank animals anyway and the law has no place in the bedroom. Using the same logic, would It be cool if I tucked my penis inside a woman who's passed out? I mean she won't get harmed - I make gentle loving and Ill use protection and she won't remember a thing. Also, it's a well-known fact that men outrank women in our day and age - just look at any statitistics - they'll confirm that woman are infact inferior to men. Guess Ill be hitting town tonight! Sorry, clearly you're confused by your colossal amount of idiocy. When I said I was fine with this because no animal was being harmed I wasn't suggesting that that was the only way of judging whether something was right or wrong. Rape is wrong, even though it doesn't involve any animals at all. I brought up harm of animals because it is eminently relevant to this issue but it's actually less relevant to other issues such as rape which doesn't involve any animals at all. There are things which make things bad and in this case harm of animals would be one of them but in other cases we might use other factors. Hopefully that clears up my point for you so you can avoid making such incredibly, obscenely stupid straw men arguments in future. I dont mind having this discussion - not that thers much to discuss, we think different about the subject, but if you can't play nice I'll go and spend time in another thread... You think you were making an actual point but you didn't, instead what you did was brought up something that was not only an irrelevant straw man but also something that was incredibly personally offensive to me. If I offended you with that post I'm sorry, but calling "X outranks Y and therefore X can do whatever it fucking likes" is in my eyes the worst kind of justification. And who are we to tell whos getting harmed in the process? Last time i checked animals (cept a few) didn't have intercourse for other reasons than reproduction. I agree with you; there are more aspects to it than that, but just because you can do something does in no way or form justify doing it. If you believe that humans don't outrank animals then I have some bad news for you about where food comes from. Well, that's called nature. The stronger survives. Eat, or be eaten. Fucking animals is just sick and wrong, i don't know why we're even discussing about how that's right or wrong. Nothing natural about the domestication of the chicken. It's an animal that is perfectly on its period that we eat. Drinking cow milk is pretty fucking weird too. While i agree that's not how nature worked before we got brains, that has atleast a reason. Chickens can lay eggs. Milk is needed for so many things. What's your reason for fucking animals?
Cows do not naturally produce milk for humans and chickens do not need to lay an egg a day for the survival of their species. This is human intervention.
|
On June 14 2013 17:44 Greenei wrote:
It's totally fine to hold cows against their 'will', slaugther them and eat them. but god forbid you but your penis in them. because THAT would be animal cruelty... Chances are that the fucking cow or orse or pig doesn't even mind your little human dick. It's completely nonsensical and just a byproduct of an irrational culturous development. Everyone should be able to fuck their animals as long as it doesn't violate the animal cruelty laws.
Almost all legislation is affected by "culture", how is that a problem? Laws can't be created in a vacuum, they need to relate to reality, or else they end up going against the public perception of what's right and wrong.
Criminalizing this and still allowing the slaughter industry appear weird to some, but it really isn't. All animal protection laws are about not having the animals suffer more than is necessary. Considering our meat consumption we need to be able to kill them and eat them, and that pain involved is considered necessary. If you want to slaughter it in a special fashion for religious reasons, that has been judged acceptable as well (at least in sweden, but the rising xenophobia in europe might force a change in some countries).
When it comes to satisfying your weird and taboo urges, that isn't reason enough to have the animals suffer. Unnecessary pain, and hence criminalization is justified.
|
Surprised it wasn't already.
|
How is it not obvious that this whole thread is troll bait?
|
On June 14 2013 18:29 Nekovivie wrote:
Surprised it wasn't already.
We are talking about Sweden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
