|
On October 08 2006 19:47 Kwark wrote:
And if someone likes sex with animals then fair enough as long as they do it in their own home (or a Dutch brothel) where it causes no harm to other people. This is where i have to draw the line, for this is almost impossible to achieve. People are social creatures. Sure many people live the life of a recluse, but they still have to come in contact with other people at various points in their lives/day. Beastiality isnt something harmless to the human pscyhe like preferring the taste of chocolate over vanilla. It is a self-destructive act, and self-destructive people are usually dangerous.
You see a man raping a dog in his bedroom who never leaves the house and orders his groceries online after winning the lottery as someone completely shutoff from the outside world and not capable of harming anyone. I see him grabbing the mailman at his front door step by the neck and throwing him into the underground dungeon for weeks of torture and humiliation, until his skin suit is ready to be worn.
It is for these reasons that i feel wildly unnatural acts such as beastiality need to be outlawed, and those caught committing it need some type of attention.
|
Hmm.
I know that I'll probably get flamed for this, but I don't see how killing animals for food is any better than having sex with them (making love lol). Yes, it would be worse if the animals suffer when they're being ...raped, as you say. But I really don't think that's the case, because animals tend to be agressive when they're hurt, and could seriously injure the one hurting them.
Anyway, my oppinion is that this is viewed as "sick" because sex in general is "tabu". That's why incest is viewed as sick, pedophilia, etc. I'm not saying it's not. It's not normal, that's for sure. But how can you stand up and say DON'T HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, kill them and feed me their flesh instead!
Now back in highschool, about 6-7 years ago a friend showed me a 30-second bestiality clip. It was about the time when internet was introduced in Romania, and sites like Ogrish or rotten were being discovered. I'm not a fan of such sites, nor am I into bestiality, but I have seen videos of people dying, and I have seen that video. (again, i didn't find it pleasureable, but i always give in to curiousity). So this video was basicly showing a dalmatian doing a porn star "doggy style". And if anything, the dog seemed to be enjoying it. How is this worse than killing and eating that dog? Or keeping it in chains outside your house? I just don't see that.
And no, "morality" is not a good argument to what I'm asking, because it's not MORAL to KILL. And don't say "sex is for reproduction" and killing is for eating. Because then contraception would be imoral (right?). Also, I admit I had sex many times for pleasure only (edit: with girls, not animals!!!). What a low-life I must be.
So as a conclusion. If the animals aren't hurt, then maybe you should ban killing them first, and then ban having sex with them.
Sorry for my lack of proper english. Blame it on the lack of sleep.
|
it's not about hurting the animal. you people are missing the point entirely. the animal has nothing to do with this. it's about people hurting themselves, and society.
|
On October 08 2006 23:04 lil.sis wrote:
it's not about hurting the animal. you people are missing the point entirely. the animal has nothing to do with this. it's about people hurting themselves, and society.
Oh, well then you should ban the emo trend. And insitute capital punishment for those who do highschool shootings and stuff. There are so many more worse things mankind does that hurt themselvs (more or less literally) and society. An animal brothel in Amsterdam is the least of our problems. 
|
what makes you think i'm averse to banning the emo trend and instituting capital punishment for school shooters?
|
On October 08 2006 23:42 lil.sis wrote:
what makes you think i'm averse to banning the emo trend and instituting capital punishment for school shooters?
Nothing. I just said it should be done, not that people don't agree to it. It just isn't done.
It's the same thing with this brothel in discussion. It should be closed down, sure, people should seek professional help not cheap releif for their problem. But all I'm saying is that's a minor problem compared to so many big problems with society now-a-days. And you have to admit it did stirr up quite a few people, at least on this forum. So maybe focus on the big issues at hand first, that's all I'm saying.... more or less
|
*I do not believe a human society has a duty to animals*
what do you mean, humans have a HUGE duty to animals, after all we fucked up this planet and keep doing it daily, they would be just as happy if we were not around, we dont do them any good, just hurt them, but its ok, they are animals, lets fuck em all up and kill em all, whats the use for them anyway, right, or hey, lets lock them up in a zoo so we can entertain ourselfs, no wait, lets fuck up their natural habitat so we can build more, or even better, lest just extinct entire species so we can make a profit, after all we are stronger and have morals, we can do as we wish.
|
United States44402 Posts
On October 08 2006 23:55 BeSiGeR wrote:
its ok, they are animals, lets fuck em all up and kill em all, whats the use for them anyway, right, or hey, lets lock them up in a zoo so we can entertain ourselfs, no wait, lets fuck up their natural habitat so we can build more, or even better, lest just extinct entire species so we can make a profit, after all we are stronger and have morals, we can do as we wish.
I agree entirely.
|
On October 08 2006 23:55 BeSiGeR wrote:
*I do not believe a human society has a duty to animals*
what do you mean, humans have a HUGE duty to animals, after all we fucked up this planet and keep doing it daily, they would be just as happy if we were not around, we dont do them any good, just hurt them, but its ok, they are animals, lets fuck em all up and kill em all, whats the use for them anyway, right, or hey, lets lock them up in a zoo so we can entertain ourselfs, no wait, lets fuck up their natural habitat so we can build more, or even better, lest just extinct entire species so we can make a profit, after all we are stronger and have morals, we can do as we wish.
Yeah, you're right. Morally we do have duty towards animals. But don't you agree that maybe we should stop killing them, eating them, and then stop fucking them? (sorry for the language but I just want you to see my point here). I wouldn't reply, as I've said this already before a few times, but I read testie's post where he shares his view and I have something to say about that too.
Testie, do you eat animals to survive? Would you die if you only ate cereals, plants in general, vegetables, fruit, seafood, diary products, eggs, etc.? You would not. But because we're all so accustomed to eating steak and hamburgers, hot dogs, and so many others, it's easy to just say "well I need to eat don't I?" then to give up meat products in favor of not butchering animals. You eating animals, is in no way better than fucking them, it's just accepted by society. I bet that if you would have grown up to be a vegetarian you wouldn't go around saying that people need meat to survive would you?
|
i have got a question, why do vegetarians eat seafood, arent fish and other sealife also alive ?
|
United States44402 Posts
It has to be an individual personal choice to respect animals. They have no rights. We have no duty towards them. They are not members of a human society. This is because they are not human. I reckon I treat animals much better than most. I don't eat them, I don't use stuff tested on them and don't buy things that causes animals to be treated cruelly. But I do this because I think that it is the right thing to do. And that is a personal choice. There is no duty there, they have no right to expect it of me. Each person can make their own decision. And I don't give a shit what people choose.
|
United States44402 Posts
On October 09 2006 00:05 BeSiGeR wrote:
i have got a question, why do vegetarians eat seafood, arent fish and other sealife also alive ?
Because they're not vegetarians. They're people who eat vegetables and seafood. (I don't eat fish or meat btw).
This has always confused me too. Long ago there was some dietary reasons for it and it used to be believed that fish can't feel pain. You can get protein from other sources now though and fish can feel pain so they're just not vegetarians.
|
even if they could not feel pain it would be wrong, it would not be okay to kill someone who is in a coma or paralized and cannot feel. And to tell the truth humans are above animals and all, but most of the world is so rotten that i dont really care about those bunch of bastards, and feel more obliged to care about animals then them. And it would also be my choice if i chose to kick the ass of someone who abuses animals
|
Braavos36402 Posts
what is legal? what is illegal?
what is barely legal?
|
United States44402 Posts
But then you'd be hurting a human who is a member of a society to which you belong.
Ever seen one of those videos where a puppy is slowly killed by a grinning Japanese girl wearing stillettos? She steps on it and it squeals and squeaks and the stilletto goes through it a load of times and then I throw up and stop watching. I can find it if anyone wants to watch it. I defend her right to do that if she likes. I'd just rather die than do it myself. Human happiness > puppy happiness and the girl obviously enjoyed doing it.
|
well, we are just different persons and there is nothing wrong with that, but i would rather beat her sensless before i would alow her to do that. I just cannot feel mercy for someone so cruel to do that, i would administer a beatdown
|
I'm sorry I was confusing when I said "seafood". I ment weeds, algae (or how you spell it), caviar, fish eggs, etc. My vocabulary isn't large enough (at least not at this hour) to fully depict my thoughts. I didn't mean fish or squid or such.
And don't think I am a vegetarian, I eat all sorts of foods, I just don't think that what I do is better than hurting animals. I don't know what vegetarians usually eat, or if eggs/milk/etc count or not.
|
its ok, your vocabulary is just fine, its not so much related to your post but in general, vegetarians will eat fish but not meat, that confused me
|
On October 09 2006 00:29 BeSiGeR wrote:
its ok, your vocabulary is just fine, its not so much related to your post but in general, vegetarians will eat fish but not meat, that confused me
You got a spectrum of vegetarians and depending where you are on that spectrum dictates what stuff you can eat etc concerning fish/eggs/other dairy products etc etc. (btw I'm not a vegetarian, can't go without chicken!)
|
i know there are lactovegetarians and all sorts of vegetarians, i just wanna know how do those of them who do eat fish justify eating them
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
