EPTWhy is this legal ?? - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On October 11 2006 11:39 Chibi[OWNS] wrote: I see what youre saying. Our only discovery of pedophiles is when they commit a criminal act, and of course criminals have a few screws loose. My answer to this would simply be depending upon the severity of abuse determines the aggression in the attacker. Those with higher levels of mental trauma are more likely to act our their impulses than those who have been mildly abused, yet abused just enough to find sexual arousal in minors. Just because someone manages to keep their deranged and deviant impulses under control doesnt make them normal imo, and i sure as hell wouldnt let anyone near my child who confesses that they are turned on by children but would never do anything about it. This is not true. This is true for people who commit sexual crimes, not for pedofiles. The reason your interpretation is skewed is because we have statistics ONLY for people who have committed sexual crimes. This is what I was trying to say (probably). As for the 10 questions, well i'd need an honest pedophile here to conduct the survey with. Any pedophiles around? Anybody? And you cant honestly believe that a non-pedophelic yet still sexually violent/rapist individual, would possibly get angry at a social event one day, and whilst storming around the house thinking of ways to vent his rage, see's little susy playing with her dolls and says "i know, ill fondle a child, that'll be a good release. Not because i have any particular reason to make her my victim, she's just available"? No man, it never goes down like this. Sexual attacks are very specific, especially when against children. Someone attacks a child, it is specifically because they wanted to attack a child, not because she was just incidentally there at the time. And they are usually very planned, at least from the moment of impulse. Coersion and manipulation are the name of the game, and it requires an investment of time to set up a scenerio in which someone can sexually abuse a child. | ||
|
alphaentity
United States525 Posts
On October 08 2006 07:29 ToT)Testie( wrote: 4. What are you mother fuckers, bat shit crazy? It is simply wrong to fuck, kill, hurt, animals. We kill them for survival. Yes there are some extreme cases, but the majority of animal slaughter isn't what PETA shows. What do we fuck them for? Because you're too ugly to get laid? Fuck you, fuck an ugly person. Your comment is contradictory. If you are completely against hurting animals in anyway or in anysense, then your logic that "fucking animals (and therefore hurting them)is wrong" makes sense. Yet, you say "we kill them for survival". However, you don't have to kill animals to survive. Here, I am thinking that by "survive" you mean for food. However, one can make the argument that you kill animals for the enjoyment and taste of meat. So WTF ? why would you hurt an innocent animal for your own enjoyment of taste? Other than that, I think your main argument is just "it "feels" gross/wrong to fuck an animal and you must be crazy if you think it's ok" in which case it can be related to ppl that say "it "feels" gross/wrong to fuck someone of the same sex and you must be crazy if you think it's ok". You will probably say that I mis-interpreted your statements because i'm dumb or stupid or whatever...but please explain to me what you are "really" saying. | ||
Chill
Calgary26004 Posts
| ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On October 08 2006 14:11 Chill wrote: Stop trying to stir shit. We hurt a few animals to avoid hurting many humans. fuck that very much, what did the animals do to deserve to be hurt, just to avoid those humans being harmed. Its fucking unfair, if you want to test something, why dont you do it on yourself? why do you have to hurt somebody/something else ? fucking bullshit i hope that ends. | ||
|
alienas2
11 Posts
| ||
|
Chill
Calgary26004 Posts
On October 11 2006 16:36 Night[Mare] wrote: [removed quote within quote] fuck that very much, what did the animals do to deserve to be hurt, just to avoid those humans being harmed. Its fucking unfair, if you want to test something, why dont you do it on yourself? why do you have to hurt somebody/something else ? fucking bullshit i hope that ends. Animals did nothing to deserve being hurt. Animals should be hurt before humans because they are less intelligent and live shorter lives. I don't test it on myself because I can test it on a less intelligent animal. If I'm going to deprive something of its life, it makes more sense for it to be an animal than a human. If there's some third option that comes into the mix, like computer simulation, then that would be a good alternative, but until that's the case, testing on animals makes sense to me. If some new species arrives, and lives longer lives than us with more intelligence, and they can only test their products on us or them, it would make more sense for them to test them on us. I'm sure you'll have some emotional response instead of a logical one, as all your responses have been in this thread, so let me sum up by saying: Animal testing is done for a reason; people in the scientific world generally aren't cruel to animals without reson. I don't think it's good, but there usually are no better alternative. You test things on a few animals to make sure a mass marketed product doesn't hurt a large number of humans. If you made a drug that was supposed to cure a disease but instead stopped heart function, and you didn't test it on an animal (terrible example, I know, but you get the point) you would kill thousands of people. By kill that animal you've essentially saved thousands of lives. Even if you do the test hundreds of times you're still, essentially, saving lives. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
Someone cant peform homosexual acts unless he is born that way? errr. fucking wrong, let me remind you of african tribes who practice fellatio to the elder tribemen to aquire their hunting skills, they arent gay, its their society's collective conciousness. Let me remind you also that for hundreds of years having sex with extremely young women were normal, but i guess the whole civilization back then were sick? lol. People who get turned on by minors arent sick, people who RAPE minors are, duh Just watch porn ffs, everybody watches and get turned on by things they wouldnt do, thats how our sexual mind works. Anyway i dont see how this supports an argument against zoophilia, tell me why a male dog fucking a female should be illegal? | ||
|
dream-_-
United States1857 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
As for what this has to do with beastiality, i put them one as the same. Pedophiles are sick individuals, who are a high risk to the communities they live in. People who practice beastiality are also sick individuals. While pedophiles tend to spread their horrific crimes to other children, im not quite sure what this translates into for beastial...iacs.. Personally, i believe society works as a whole, and a socities strength depends upon the mental and emotional health of it's citizens. With sick minded inviduals, such as those who have sex with animals, are a part of a society, it weakens it. How do you think a population would fare if you rounded up beastial..iacs, and put them together to form a city with a 80/20 ratio of perversion to what we have defined as normal persons? Imagine if your neighborhood was suddenly populated by animals sexers... do you think life would just go on as normal? Hell the fuck no. That neighborhood would become so deranged and twisted it's frightening to imagine what life would be like to peer in for a day. It is for this reason that I feel people with dramatically unnatural tendencies, like the completely flat out bizarre fetish of wanting to have sex with animals, be criminalized. Beacuse they are sick, and can only do harm to a community, not good. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
alphaentity
United States525 Posts
Newbsaibot's statement that pedophiliacs are sick individuals and dangerous to society is not entirely true. I know wikipedia is not the strongest reference, however at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia you will find studies that show about 1/4 of adults are "pedos". The ones that actually commit rape of young children are sick...but I don't think that simply being aroused by young children is "sick and high risk to communities". Now a valid argument against beastiality is that when one comes into society, they accept an implied social contract in which they would follow the law... and if the law says no, then no on beastiality. However, what we are arguing here is whether there SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be a law. There is also the issue of consent, animals (and children for that matter) generally do not have the ability/understanding to consent to having sexual acts performed on/by them. But if a dog starts humping my leg, (or a woman's vagina), I would say that it serves as a perfectly fine indication of consent from the dog. Thus, if the animal starts it, then i think it's fine to enjoy it. However, if you start it, then you get into that gray area. | ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
Atlantic
Canada133 Posts
If you are to read the entire article "The Beginners Guide For Ladies with Dogs" which is an actual article. You will see that the dog is not forced into doing something that it does not want and infact, 99% of the time it will happily enjoy it. They also cover all bases to make sure that the dog and the female are safe and unharmed. I know that reading the article might not seem like an option but it will answer many questions that you have. Although I am not a fan and do not engage in these acts that society condems, I do think people should have the option if they wish. It's also evident that the people who prefert his type of intercourse is an ever increasing number. Some places has condemed it illegal and others legal but I do not think any of them have sat down and throughly discussed the topic without brining into considering their own values and beliefs. I believe that in the next 10-15 years you will see a rapid increase in this activity and it become more common on the internet. | ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
lil.sis
China4650 Posts
it's all about where you draw the line. in my opinion, fucking dogs is over the line | ||
|
Atlantic
Canada133 Posts
On October 12 2006 08:08 lil.sis wrote: just because something feels good and doesnt hurt anyone does not mean that it's okay to do it it's all about where you draw the line. in my opinion, fucking dogs is over the line That's those societal taboos I'm talking about. I am sure many people have the same feelings as you but it doesn't mean those who like to do it will stop. Look how far they came with homosexuals; it went from being an "illness" to allowing them to get married in some countries and have huge pride demonstrations. | ||
|
Dametri
United States726 Posts
On October 12 2006 08:08 lil.sis wrote: just because something feels good and doesnt hurt anyone does not mean that it's okay to do it Yes it does. If you're taking a religious standpoint on this, fine; else, explain why exactly it's not okay - and if the argument is only that people with a bestiality fetish are inherently sick, youre making the same argument thousands of rednecks have made against homosexuality. As a side note, the very idea of screwing an animal literally makes my skin crawl. Geh. But whatever floats your boat... | ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
|
Chibi[OWNS]
United Kingdom10597 Posts
| ||
| ||
