|
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.
wow....I'm speechless. OK I can't even believe there is a debate going on about humans and animals outranking each-other or whether or not the animal is getting hurt... or about eggs or milk or meat or anything.. Human's do not outrank animals. A beaver killed an old man a while back. A tiger or a bear will destroy you 1 on 1 or have it's bloody way with you. We as human's have a responsibility to the animals on this planet. We are part of the ecosystem and if we destroy it we destroy ourselves. Hell microbes can even kill us, or a virus. heh were talking the most minute form of life.
Lol I'm so drunk and i just watched Clerk's 2 last night..."inter-species erotica" So I'm going to take a minute and burn Kwark here or anything else making similar claims in this thread. I wouldn't expect a mod to take this issue so seriously. I understand playing devil's advocate for argument's sake but this is ridiculous.
This is how it is folks. If you are fucking an Animal it is because you cannot fuck a woman, or a man if you are a gay, it's probably because you are probably a hideous shut in.. If you are sexually attracted to an animal you have a psycho-sexual disorder, whether it is an intense perversion or a compulsion or just straight schizo. Something in your brain is not right. You can catch a disease and pass it to somebody else...It's unsanitary and dangerous and bad for our society.
You are abusing an animal, who has no sense. It's like abusing a child who doesn't know any better. It's morally abusive.. At least if the child is of the same species and has gone through puberty its biologically compatible. It is wrong, sick and retarded in either case because human beings should know better.
The most important factor is that - your a fucking weirdo if you do. Period. There is no arguing with this. There are no fallacies you are grossly deviating from socially accepted behavior. It is not normal or acceptable for a human being to fuck an animal, under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if an animal is in heat or you 'trained' it and its not being hurt. It's just idiotic, and perverted, not to mention dangerous. It's not about opinion it's about right and wrong. Sanitation is necessary for our survival and we have spent along time developing our society not to have it fucked up by some psycho-sexual retards. /end rant /burn
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 14 2013 19:40 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:05 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. doesn`t care in the context of love, let me clarify as that is the argument here. as to the rest of your post, accepted. love is a human concept. also, universal morality would disagree with you.
First time I read someone say something that makes sense to me.
|
On June 14 2013 19:41 Throwaway169 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. wow....I'm speechless. OK I can't even believe there is a debate going on about humans and animals outranking each-other or whether or not the animal is getting hurt... or about eggs or milk or meat or anything.. Human's do not outrank animals. A beaver killed an old man a while back. A tiger or a bear will destroy you 1 on 1 or have it's bloody way with you. We as human's have a responsibility to the animals on this planet. We are part of the ecosystem and if we destroy it we destroy ourselves. Hell microbes can even kill us, or a virus. heh were talking the most minute form of life. Lol I'm so drunk and i just watched Clerk's 2 last night..."inter-species erotica" So I'm going to take a minute and burn Kwark here or anything else making similar claims in this thread. I wouldn't expect a mod to take this issue so seriously. I understand playing devil's advocate for argument's sake but this is ridiculous.This is how it is folks. If you are fucking an Animal it is because you cannot fuck a woman, or a man if you are a gay, it's probably because you are probably a hideous shut in.. If you are sexually attracted to an animal you have a psycho-sexual disorder, whether it is an intense perversion or a compulsion or just straight schizo. Something in your brain is not right. You can catch a disease and pass it to somebody else...It's unsanitary and dangerous and bad for our society. You are abusing an animal, who has no sense. It's like abusing a child who doesn't know any better. It's morally abusive.. At least if the child is of the same species and has gone through puberty its biologically compatible. It is wrong, sick and retarded in either case because human beings should know better. The most important factor is that - your a fucking weirdo if you do. Period. There is no arguing with this. There are no fallacies you are grossly deviating from socially accepted behavior. It is not normal or acceptable for a human being to fuck an animal, under any circumstances. It doesn't matter if an animal is in heat or you 'trained' it and its not being hurt. It's just idiotic, and perverted, not to mention dangerous. It's not about opinion it's about right and wrong. Sanitation is necessary for our survival and we have spent along time developing our society not to have it fucked up by some psycho-sexual retards. /end rant /burn
I didn't put it that way, but THANK GOD there's someone who feel the same way as me about this. BUT humans outrank animals in my eyes. I wouldn't abuse them, but we are far superior.
|
United States42187 Posts
On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves.
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
|
so, those 161 horses. were they giving or receiving?
|
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
|
United States42187 Posts
On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that.
I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Yeah. That's like pretty much the opposite of the definition of harm in this stage.
"offending your delicate sensibilities" is categorically not classed as harm in a discussion such as this. Or in law.
edit: not sure what I meant to type when I put "in this stage". Can't even think of what I meant to put.
|
On June 14 2013 19:34 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:28 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On June 14 2013 19:17 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:15 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:14 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:07 TheKefka wrote:On June 14 2013 19:03 ExKkaMaGui wrote:
I love it when humans try to ban bestiality because of the cruelty on animals...
Of course, we cannot just go and ban it because it's fucking sick (please do not say that is debatable).
And to those that will tell me that I find it sick, but others do not so who is to say whose perspective is correct?,
Insane people who kill for no reason think murder is ok. Want to debate that too? Well some people think group sex is sick,or even a threesome.If you go around and start banning stuff that's "sick" to some people you might end up in a awkward situation. I get what you are saying, and on almost any topic, I'd agree with you. But we are talking about fucking an animal. By your logic, should child pornography be legal? In any scenario the answer should be no, but by your logic, it should be. Production of child pornography hurts children who are people and should be protected. Saying that has as much basis as me saying, "Bestiality is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Thus, should be banned." In the end, it all depends on where you decide to draw the line. Picking your nose and eating it is disgusting and does not provide any positive value to our society. Is that really the standard we want to be using when determining whether an act should be legislated against? I'm of the opinion that beastiality really belongs under the umbrella of cruelty to animals. Causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily shouldn't be legal, and how you interact with an animal shouldn't be legislated body part by body part, or by your physiological response to the interaction. This topic is really beyond my field of expertise, but what is the argument towards claiming that there is cruelty to animals in acts of bestiality? How do you define cruelty, or suffering? Honest question.
I think defining cruelty or suffering is exactly the role that the courts should be playing in interpreting animal cruelty laws. To get into the nitty-gritty of the actual subject at hand, I think there's a fairly simple case to be made that vaginally or anally raping an animal is cruel, just based on the physical damage done. Demonstrating the psychological cruelty of the act would be somewhat more difficult, but I can't imagine it would be an insurmountable problem in a lot of cases. I don't see why causing an animal to experience unnecessary trauma due to the insertion of a penis into their body should be more or less illegal than causing the animal to unnecessary trauma through some other means.
There are other cases where I think the law just isn't necessary. I read of a case recently where a man was prosecuted for coaxing a young sheep or goat to fellate him, and the judge ruled that as bizzarre as the act was the prosecution couldn't demonstrate that any animal cruelty had actually taken place. The choice quote was something along the line that the animal was probably confused why no milk was coming out, since the dimensions of the object under consideration were similar to a teat. I think getting blowjobs from sheep is strange, but I agree with the judge in that case that I don't see what harm was actually done. Additionally, there are vastly worse things being done to farm animals that are more worthy of legislators' attentions and energies. Passing a law against it isn't going to drastically reduce the number of goatjobs being performed in any case, since the number of people with opportunity and motive to commit that particular crime is presumably pretty small, and if you're into that you're doing it in secret already anyhow due to the social taboo.
|
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
|
United States42187 Posts
On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed.
Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand.
|
On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it.
Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
|
United States42187 Posts
On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition.
Could you use that in a common sentence for me with the implication that the person has done something morally wrong rather than hindered, blocked or physically intervened in a situation?
|
On June 14 2013 19:52 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Yeah. That's like pretty much the opposite of the definition of harm in this stage. "offending your delicate sensibilities" is categorically not classed as harm in a discussion such as this. Or in law. edit: not sure what I meant to type when I put "in this stage". Can't even think of what I meant to put.
First, I never defined "offending your delicate sensibilities" as harm.
Second, on what basis is that not categorically classed in this discussion? On your opinion...?
|
On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me?
Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
|
On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:27 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 18:24 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 18:16 Reason wrote:On June 14 2013 17:58 aNGryaRchon wrote:On June 14 2013 17:36 Reason wrote:
[quote]
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. Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak. I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise. There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future. Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree?
Should this also be applied to pedophilia?
|
On June 14 2013 17:02 narkissos wrote:
Seems over the top, some girl letting her dog lick her might bee disgusting but does she deserve jail time? Animal cruelty laws already covers every situation were the animal is hurt.
I would agree with you here but the problem is, cruelty to the animals involed is given in more than 90% of the cases, but its hard to prove. (Imagin a horse testifying in court) Joke aside, a dog licking a girl is the rare exception, most of the times its farmers fixating animals with ropes to make them unmovable and then penetrating them.
Again the sexual part itself shouldn't be punishable by jailtime, but since cruelty is acutally involed in almost every case I can understand how the swedish government takes this step.
|
United States42187 Posts
On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing.
This sentence didn't contain the word harm. Please use harm in a sentence to refer to an act that is morally wrong while not physically damaging an item or metaphorically damaging a cause.
|
United Kingdom36158 Posts
On June 14 2013 19:58 ExKkaMaGui wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 19:57 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:56 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:51 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:50 ExKkaMaGui wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:09 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 18:45 aNGryaRchon wrote:
[quote]
Let's use definition then, and kill you with your own sword so to speak.
I am sure 99.99% of the time or more, people involved in bestiality don't allow a dog's or a horse's cock into their vagina, ass, or whatever orifice because they want to express that emotional connection with the animal. On the other side of the act, 100% of the time the animal doesn't care otherwise.
There is no way out of this for you unfortunately. Just admit that you are wrong, that bestiality is not an act of love, and then learn from it and hope that you can develop better reasoning skills in the future.
Massive Facepalm. dude, just watch bestiality porn. the horses just want to get the fuck out of there or they don't/can't even get hard and are tormented for hours untill they do. the 100% of the time the animal doesn't care is bs. you ASSUME it doesn't care. edit: they get a mare in heat then have the horse sniff it, just so they could film 5-10 min of something. Does it matter if the horse isn't getting off on it? Horses don't get off on pulling ploughs either, nor on carrying mongol hordes across Asia. This is the same bullshit argument as when homophobes go "I don't personally mind what two consenting adults do but I'm worried about the children" while simultaneously giving no shits about children in any other context. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like unless they're harming someone and if you think that protection against harm should be extended to animals then have the intellectual honesty to extend it in more than just this one context that you disagree on. That's the difference between believing in a cause and making an excuse. so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on. but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better. ignorance does not excuse innocence. edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? I agree with you, but if I know that people in my community are fucking animals, to me, that's a harm because it bothers me that there are people out there that do that. I think you don't know what the word harm means. I think that attitude is far more harmful to society than some guy fucking a sheep in the privacy of his own home yet you don't see me sending you to jail for it. Actually, harm can be defined simply as "wrongdoing", it's a common definition. Could you use that in a common sentence for me? Having people who fuck animals in society is a wrongdoing. (common for this discussion)
No, "wrongdoing" is a terrible, terrible description because it becomes completely subjective, which defeats the whole purpose of it.
This is the classical definition of harm, from JS Mill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
|
On June 14 2013 19:58 esperanto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 17:02 narkissos wrote:
Seems over the top, some girl letting her dog lick her might bee disgusting but does she deserve jail time? Animal cruelty laws already covers every situation were the animal is hurt. I would agree with you here but the problem is, cruelty to the animals involed is given in more than 90% of the cases, but its hard to prove. (Imagin a horse testifying in court) Joke aside, a dog licking a girl is the rare exception, most of the times its farmers fixating animals with ropes to make them unmovable and then penetrating them. Again the sexual part itself shouldn't be punishable by jailtime, but since cruelty is acutally involed in almost every case I can understand how the swedish government takes this step.
I also think jail time might be a bit too much.
So would an excessive fine.
But other than that, the only thing we can enforce the ban is by prevention, but we can't do that either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
