Bestiality

[Dimitri Valko]

A lot of the "opinions" here would be used on homosexuality and interracial love one hundred years ago. The stupidity in this thread. Please. Rozalia is one of the more intelligent people here. Stopped reading after first page of this toxicity.

 

Laughable. The stupidest things in this thread are the posts of you and Rozalia. You obviously did not stop reading after the first page, as some of your points are based off of the second page.

 

While there are a lot of good reasons against bestiality comments like Domitri Valkos are backwards and could be used for as to why either of the two aforementioned things should be crimes. Please. Rozalia, don't respond to stupid. If you want to have a good discussion clearly it isn't to be found here.

 

No, they don't. It's odd how you used my posts as examples to something I did not do. The arguments of others, such as John Harms, could be used against homosexual and inter-racial relations, but mine don't.

 

"Rozalia, don't respond to stupid." I hope you find the irony in that statement.

 

Edit: if your reasoning is akin to "it's abominable" or "it isn't right" please do everyone a favour and leave now. That isn't justification for anything and has lead to many wars, homophobia, racism, hatred and holocausts. Please refine your medieval belief system and use logic, facts and reasoning to defend a point not subjective view points that give way under actual reasoning where your only response is to then post pictures of dogs and cats and asking OP how they make him feel rofl

 

So, if I made a thread called "Murder" and asked why it was illegal and such, those that say it "isn't right" have "medieval belief systems"? You're asking people to eliminate any sense of morality from their arguments, and that's bloody idiotic.

[Doktor Avalanche]

To begin with Prima Nocta is a load of cobblers. Now as for your point... I don't see it, unless you're trying to support what I said that is. Back in times of slavery men would simply have sex with their slaves, they were after all their possessions. However slavery is not in effect today and nobody owns anybody, though obviously some people are in higher positions of power than others that isn't the same deal. Of course there are places where slavery is still done (if they call it slavery or not) and in such cases once again the owners do indeed just have sex with their slaves.

 

Homosexuality. Interracial. Could go on. All are "abominable" for reasons when questioned people can't quite explain and eventually such people lose and it becomes normal. What I'm saying is that is not an argument. 

 

Aren't you a Libertarian by the way? I mean you've several times attacked me based on the matter of the "nanny state" so it seems odd that you'd now be saying this. All I can think of is perhaps you hold your bible high but I don't know that for definite. 

I know exactly where you are standing on this discussion. Under the social libertarian guise you can argue legitimately in favor of allowing bestiality to be a justifiable personal right- based on how we subjugate livestock for slaughter and other species of animals for entertainment and private ownership.

 

But I have donated time to our local Humane Society and have witnessed animals who were sexually abused be killed by their own species, who were abused by the sick !@#$ who raped them and who starved themselves to death. It is a sickness regardless of trying to defend it and justify it. Bestiality effects the animals own cognition, even when it is not done violently, though it is still an abusive act.

 

Its like trying to argue in favor of me owning a pistol in England as most of you !@#$ see it as wrong, though I can justify owning it. In this case pumping Fluffy full of man juice is the wrong view no matter how arguably right you can justify it.

[Chapsie]

So, if I made a thread called "Murder" and asked why it was illegal and such, those that say it "isn't right" have "medieval belief systems"? You're asking people to eliminate any sense of morality from their arguments, and that's bloody idiotic.

 

Nono, he's asking for a logical explanation as to why it is "wrong" or "gross." He's not saying your point is wrong, he's just saying to state why, and if you can't then don't bother commenting. 

 

Now I'm not a part of this discussion, I just wanted to point that out. Peace.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Chappie

[EliteCanada]

Laughable. The stupidest things in this thread are the posts of you and Rozalia. You obviously did not stop reading after the first page, as some of your points are based off of the second page.

 

 

 

Saying the adjective "stupidest" is laughable. Great job digging into your extensive vocabulary to find that one though. I also didn't read through the first page. Just skimmed through it, too much toxicity (may have skimmed through the second page and found keywords for my "points," however I doubt I did that, pretty sure your comments alone could justify the phrasing of my comments even if I saw the words I used for my points in a different post).

 

 

No, they don't. It's odd how you used my posts as examples to something I did not do. The arguments of others, such as John Harms, could be used against homosexual and inter-racial relations, but mine don't.

 

"Rozalia, don't respond to stupid." I hope you find the irony in that statement.

 

Also laughable, let's go over your three points against bestiality (from your first post) shall we?

 

First off, people typically don't find animals attractive.

Second off, who would do that to an animal?

Third off, human-animal hybrids... ugh.

 

You don't think these can be used against homosexual or interracial couples eh? Let's swap a few of the words out and see how it looks

 

First off, people typically don't find other members of their sex attractive.

Second off, who would do that to another man or woman? 

Third off, homsexual/interracial-animal hybrids... ugh.

 

Wow, if you change the pronouns that is the exact same argument that you used for bestiality and that people do/can/have used to decry the "deplorable" acts of homosexuality and interracial love. I think Nazis would agree with the reasoning you're using, so kudos on that friend. 

 

And yeah, I'm an ironic man, problem? 

 

 

 

So, if I made a thread called "Murder" and asked why it was illegal and such, those that say it "isn't right" have "medieval belief systems"? You're asking people to eliminate any sense of morality from their arguments, and that's bloody idiotic.

 

 

I'm asking people to use reason, facts, and logic in regards to making the law. For example, you would outlaw sedition (here's just one example) because it is destructive for society in objective quantifiable ways. Morality is too subjective and varies wildly from person to person. Some would say being an atheist, or Muslim or Jewish is immoral and should be outlawed. 

 

 

Nono, he's asking for a logical explanation as to why it is "wrong" or "gross." He's not saying your point is wrong, he's just saying to state why, and if you can't then don't bother commenting. 

 

 

This.

 

Edit: Some of my points are for hyperbole. Not calling you a Nazi or racist. Just trying to point out the fallacy of your line of thinking and what harm it does for mankind. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada

[EliteCanada]

I believe you should study biology a bit more, before assuming that that morals are the only thing preventing it from becoming legal (If that's what your arguing?)? But of course, we as people (which generally alot of people would love to live clean) would not encourage this "sexual pleasure". Your main point is basically "why the hell not?". 

 

Going to go over this point real quickly. First post of yours I read, sorry if you responded to this elsewhere, but that is an inherently flawed way of thinking, "it's outlawed because it's bad, as in unhealthy, for you and or society." Laws like this, for the most part, are not at all based on how good, or bad, something is for your health or societies health. If that were the case alcohol, cigarettes and so many other things (such as people having genetically inheritable diseases or sicknesses reproducing) would be outlawed. Laws like this are entirely created due to public moral perception of the "thing." Disagree still with that in mind? 

 

Double standards are made with laws all the time. People will be like you cannot tell me I can or cannot smoke/drink, or who I can and can not marry/date for it is my life and who are you to tell me how to live? Then the same people will say that cocaine, amphetamines, polygamy, or even bestiality are wrong and destructive/amoral to society. Please. All of these things unquestionably would be less harmful to society than the effects of drinking and smoking. Not only does smoking harm the individual smoking, but all others as well through second hand smoking. The double standards in society disgust me, as do so many of the viewpoints of people in this thread. If you're going to eat an animal and support it being in captivity for all of its life you're going to tell me having sex with it is wrong? Please. 

 

P.S. No I don't have sex with animals, nor do I want to, rofl. I can agree or disagree with a law or question it without wanting to do it myself. I can be gay marriage, but not want to !@#$ men. The people implying that Rozalia wants to have sex with animals are sad, sad individuals. Mob mentality please. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada

[Rozalia]

Thanks to EliteCanada, Chappie, and Hereno for understanding.

 

Laughable. The stupidest things in this thread are the posts of you and Rozalia. You obviously did not stop reading after the first page, as some of your points are based off of the second page.
 
 
No, they don't. It's odd how you used my posts as examples to something I did not do. The arguments of others, such as John Harms, could be used against homosexual and inter-racial relations, but mine don't.
 
"Rozalia, don't respond to stupid." I hope you find the irony in that statement.


 
So, if I made a thread called "Murder" and asked why it was illegal and such, those that say it "isn't right" have "medieval belief systems"? You're asking people to eliminate any sense of morality from their arguments, and that's bloody idiotic.

 
No. I have presented actual points and questioned the dubious morality and the quite laughable "consent" argument. You have made zero arguments on the matter.
 
Actually your very first post alone is as EliteCanada said... here I'll help you out.
 

First off, people typically don't find blacks attractive.
Second off, who would do that with a subhuman?
Third off, white-black hybrids... ugh.

 
You're so closeminded you fail to realize that what you just said (murder example) in itself lends credibility to one of the points I made. Murder is simple to argue against and killing a human being is wrong, as is eating them afterwards, as is enslaving them. This however does not apply to animals. Animals are enslaved constantly and are also killed and eaten on large scales. So a great many of things don't apply to animals but this "consent" suddenly does? Why? It's not unquestionable and I have questioned it and it seems people truly have no defense and yet... still believe they are correct. It is as you would say, laughable.

Truth is what you refer to as "morality" in this case is merely a knee jerk reaction you've made without first exploring the subject. You cannot even defend it in any manner, only able to if I borrow the frame work you used "ask people to eliminate any sense of logic from their arguments" and simply accept something is wrong... because it is.  
 

I know exactly where you are standing on this discussion. Under the social libertarian guise you can argue legitimately in favor of allowing bestiality to be a justifiable personal right- based on how we subjugate livestock for slaughter and other species of animals for entertainment and private ownership.
 
But I have donated time to our local Humane Society and have witnessed animals who were sexually abused be killed by their own species, who were abused by the sick !@#$ who raped them and who starved themselves to death. It is a sickness regardless of trying to defend it and justify it. Bestiality effects the animals own cognition, even when it is not done violently, though it is still an abusive act.
 
Its like trying to argue in favor of me owning a pistol in England as most of you !@#$ see it as wrong, though I can justify owning it. In this case pumping Fluffy full of man juice is the wrong view no matter how arguably right you can justify it.

 

So you admit that it is legitimate, alright thats something.

 

Homosexuality is a mental illness (again I'm not actually saying this), that do you? You know the other examples I could mention so I won't. Additionally as I said, morality is dubious on the matter and people don't really care for such animals. Some people are consistent and can claim legitimately to do so but most... just can't. They see animals as completely inferior and everything else that has been mentioned is perfectly acceptable but sex suddenly is some grand evil. However you did acknowledge this so saying this to you doesn't have much point I suppose, but everyone can read so perhaps it makes somebody think.

 

Well I would say that with the issue of guns there is a destructive element involved in the matter. Bestiality is in essence harmless if everything is medially cleared. As is sticking your member in somebody else's buttocks. As is... so on. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rozalia

[EliteCanada]

Also I feel like I need to remind people of something. I am not saying I support bestiality, nor did I say that I do not support it, but instead all that I argue is that the reasoning people use are so full of holes and fallacies as to be horrendously immoral in and of themselves. That is what I am saying disgusts me here, not that people can't find a pooch and have sexual relations with it. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Going to go over this point real quickly. First post of yours I read, sorry if you responded to this elsewhere, but that is an inherently flawed way of thinking, "it's outlawed because it's bad, as in unhealthy, for you and or society." Laws like this, for the most part, are not at all based on how good, or bad, something is for your health or societies health. If that were the case alcohol, cigarettes and so many other things (such as people having genetically inheritable diseases or sicknesses reproducing) would be outlawed. Laws like this are entirely created due to public moral perception of the "thing." Disagree still with that in mind? 

 

Double standards are made with laws all the time. People will be like you cannot tell me I can or cannot smoke/drink, or who I can and can not marry/date for it is my life and who are you to tell me how to live? Then the same people will say that cocaine, amphetamines, polygamy, or even bestiality are wrong and destructive/amoral to society. Please. All of these things unquestionably would be less harmful to society than the effects of drinking and smoking. Not only does smoking harm the individual smoking, but all others as well through second hand smoking. The double standards in society disgust me, as do so many of the viewpoints of people in this thread. If you're going to eat an animal and support it being in captivity for all of its life you're going to tell me having sex with it is wrong? Please. 

 

P.S. No I don't have sex with animals, nor do I want to, rofl. I can agree or disagree with a law or question it without wanting to do it myself. I can be gay marriage, but not want to !@#$ men. The people implying that Rozalia wants to have sex with animals are sad, sad individuals. Mob mentality please. 

Firstly, I've never stated it was "wrong" or "good". I don't believe in things as subjective as those terms, and I believe I should make it more clarified. Your perspective is your perspective.

 

Secondly, I have nothing against it being "legalized". I've never stated I was against this in the first place, all I stated was my opinion was that it was "gross". I also stated, I wouldn't encourage it, but if people wish to commit such acts, then so be it, everyone is entitled to privacy (if you're in favor of personal freedom?).

 

Thirdly, I don't personally find bestiality to be "bad". There is of course, a strong religion based feeling that has caused society to look badly upon it. The "good" vs "bad" religiously influenced morals, that compel people to avoid tolerant ideals upon on another. People generally find things wrong or bad due to some religious pretext that details them to hate upon it, that stops them from being more open minded on how people act or "should act". 

 

Fourthly, animals are clearly able to display a "con-sexual" feeling to the sexual offer if they're obviously trying to run away, ect.

 

Though, there is a distinction to be made. People in this thread literally try to classify Zoophillia/Zoosexuality with Bestiality, which is incorrect. As Zoophillia is the actual sexual orientation of where humans loves and respects animals as true equals and is romantically/emotionally attracted to one or more species. Whereas, bestiality is simply the act of of sexual intercourse with an animal (or more?).

 

But yeah, imo I don't find it productive, but I can tolerate it. But, I'm not against it.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Comrade Enver Hoxha

[Doktor Avalanche]

Anyone can argue a point and see the legitimacy in the argument itself. However there are some things we can argue in favor of but in the end it is pointless.

 

I see the legitimacy in the argument itself but I would never support it.

 

Libertarianism in the United States is probably the most legitimate stance on the US Constitution and in full favor of people's independent sovereign rights but as you can see- no one votes for them.

 

We can debate the legitimacy of dipping your wick into a bulfrog but it does not mean anyone will buy you a beer afterwards.

[EliteCanada]

Firstly, I've never stated it was "wrong" or "good". I don't believe in things as subjective as those terms, and I believe I should make it more clarified. Your perspective is your perspective.

 

 

If I say you I usually don't refer to YOU as an individual, but to the royal you and people itself. I don't like to offer direct insults/make assumptions about people so quickly  

[Rozalia]

Anyone can argue a point and see the legitimacy in the argument itself. However there are some things we can argue in favor of but in the end it is pointless.

 

I see the legitimacy in the argument itself but I would never support it.

 

Libertarianism in the United States is probably the most legitimate stance on the US Constitution and in full favor of people's independent sovereign rights but as you can see- no one votes for them.

 

We can debate the legitimacy of dipping your wick into a bulfrog but it does not mean anyone will buy you a beer afterwards.

 

Well obviously why you would never support it could be explored but that is not something to get into here, you have at the very least given the respect of acknowledging the legitimacy of the points I put forward. Normally not worth mentioning but people have really had a problem with this basic matter. 

 

To that I refer back to my talk of the slippery slope that for the most part is rubbished, but is it really rubbish? Miscegenation and Homosexuality have both been successfully achieved, and next in line would be Polygamy/Polyandry which I believe we agreed before has no real serious argument against it. Then Bestiality? Then ??? If so then the claim of homosexuality acceptance being a "vanguard" for bestiality doesn't sound so off, in essence it's true. 

It's a fallacy and people don't tend to think much when making it, not to mention publicly figures who do so are unsavory characters by the large, but it seems like there is truth to it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day as they say.

 

Well no. Spite brought it up in an attempt to mock me which gave me the idea that yeah, I'd be interested in hearing sound arguments against it as on my own I could come to no logical reason as to why it is wrong. Considering how defenseless the argument against it is I'd say I'd write it off as being acceptable. Polygamy/Polyandry is very much the next fight but if I had to vote on bestiality I'd give it a yes with no issue. 

 

Could do without people implying I shag animals or am mentality ill of course, but I can cope. 

[Hereno]

Anyone can argue a point and see the legitimacy in the argument itself. However there are some things we can argue in favor of but in the end it is pointless.

 

I see the legitimacy in the argument itself but I would never support it.

 

Libertarianism in the United States is probably the most legitimate stance on the US Constitution and in full favor of people's independent sovereign rights but as you can see- no one votes for them.

 

We can debate the legitimacy of dipping your wick into a bulfrog but it does not mean anyone will buy you a beer afterwards.

 

you mean the constitution that was written by slave owners who compromised on having slaves count as 3/5 of a person, forbade women from voting or owning property, and restricted the vote to people who owned a certain amount of land?

 

not to derail this thread, but lmao at unironically believing shit like this while at the same time thinking rozalia is literally hitler for posing a philosophical question

[Dimitri Valko]

Laughable. The stupidest things in this thread are the posts of you and Rozalia. You obviously did not stop reading after the first page, as some of your points are based off of the second page.

 

 

Saying the adjective "stupidest" is laughable. Great job digging into your extensive vocabulary to find that one though.

 

Trust me when I say that a lack of extensive and overtly labyrinthine diction (see what I did there) is not a problem of mine. I simply responded by reflecting it from your own point, where you stated:

 

 ... The stupidity in this thread....

 

Also laughable, let's go over your three points against bestiality (from your first post) shall we?

 

First off, people typically don't find animals attractive.

Second off, who would do that to an animal?

Third off, human-animal hybrids... ugh.

 

You don't think these can be used against homosexual or interracial couples eh? Let's swap a few of the words out and see how it looks

 

First off, people typically don't find other members of their sex attractive.

Second off, who would do that to another man or woman? 

Third off, homsexual/interracial-animal hybrids... ugh.

 

Wow, if you change the pronouns that is the exact same argument that you used for bestiality and that people do/can/have used to decry the "deplorable" acts of homosexuality and interracial love. I think Nazis would agree with the reasoning you're using, so kudos on that friend.

 

Alrighty, time to back this argument.

 

For the first bit; approximately four percent of the world's population is homosexual/bisexual, and the people attracted to their own sex are not attracted to them because they are mentally impaired, unlike those who are sexually attracted by animals. Bestiality is much less common and is considered a mental disorder by modern scientists.

 

http://www.disorders.net/beastiality/

 

The second rephrasing makes absolutely no sense in that context. Human beings can provide each other with consent, while animals cannot. That was the stated point, and changing the words takes away it's meaning.

 

For the third and final one, a child cannot be born as a direct product of homosexuality. Although virgin births do occur (through a condition known as testicular feminisation), it is not due to homosexuality, and the children do not look different from normal children. While the opinion that inter-racial children look different than to that of different races can be used in an argument against inter-racial relationships, the children are not genetic freaks, like the human-animal hybrids created in laboratories. Hybrids between humans and other animals are not meant to exist naturally, while the children of inter-racial couples can easily be created through sexual intercourse.

 

Bestiality is "deplorable", it is a horrendous thing caused by mental illness. While some early scientists would also consider homosexuality a mental illness, that logic is not considered true by a modern-day scientific standpoint, unlike bestiality.

 

And yeah, I'm an ironic man, problem? 

 

 

 

I'm asking people to use reason, facts, and logic in regards to making the law. For example, you would outlaw sedition (here's just one example) because it is destructive for society in objective quantifiable ways. Morality is too subjective and varies wildly from person to person. Some would say being an atheist, or Muslim or Jewish is immoral and should be outlawed. 

 

 

 

This.

 

Edit: Some of my points are for hyperbole. Not calling you a Nazi or racist. Just trying to point out the fallacy of your line of thinking and what harm it does for mankind. 

 

I see, I must have misinterpreted your point, there. Apologies.

 

Although I see my points to not be great, as I happened to write them without thinking, they still stand. Bestiality is not like that of homosexuality. Animals cannot show consent to a person that wants to have sex with it, other than if it engages the person into intercourse (like some dolphins). In which case, if the person and animal are consensually having intercourse, then (although I personally find it to be revolting), they should be allowed.

 

Thanks to EliteCanada, Chappie, and Hereno for understanding.

 

 

No. I have presented actual points and questioned the dubious morality and the quite laughable "consent" argument. You have made zero arguments on the matter.

 

Actually your very first post alone is as EliteCanada said... here I'll help you out.

 

You have not presented valid points, and questioning the idea that the thing you have sex with also wants to have sex with you, is absurd. You act as if the animal's thoughts mean nothing.

 

You're so closeminded you fail to realize that what you just said (murder example) in itself lends credibility to one of the points I made. Murder is simple to argue against and killing a human being is wrong, as is eating them afterwards, as is enslaving them. This however does not apply to animals. Animals are enslaved constantly and are also killed and eaten on large scales. So a great many of things don't apply to animals but this "consent" suddenly does? Why? It's not unquestionable and I have questioned it and it seems people truly have no defense and yet... still believe they are correct. It is as you would say, laughable.

 

I'm not close-minded, I just found that point of your's to be invalid. It simply does not apply to all animals. If I killed my hypothetical dog, I would be imprisoned (in most US states and most countries, unless it was a euthanisation). If I raped my hypothetical dog, I would be imprisoned (in all US states and most countries). If I ate my hypothetical dog, I would be imprisoned (in 44 of 50 US states and most countries). For whatever reason, although these basic rights of "do not kill, not not eat, do not rape" apply to household pets, such as dogs and cats, they do not apply to livestock in a commercial setting. It is not legal to slaughter a livestock animal (cow, pig, etc.) in a residential setting inhumanely, and without reason. It is, allowed, though, if the cow was to be slaughtered in a commercial setting. Why the application of these laws are different for different animals are beyond me, I, personally, find that all animals should be given at least these three basic rights. I do not condone the slaughter of animals, the consumption of animals, or the rape of animals, just as I do not condone the slaughter, consumption, or rape of human beings. So, you are wrong in stating that only consent applies to animals. If I were to straight-up rip a hypothetical cow's head off in my garage, I would be imprisoned, yet we are allowed to consume cows due to the commercialisation of meat, in which cows are meant to be humanely slaughtered, as they are seen as less than household pets by most laws. It is legal to slaughter some animals, it's legal to consume some animals, but it's illegal to have sex with all animals. Why? For the same reason it is illegal to torture animals, and subject them to cruel treatment. Because it's considered to be animal abuse.

 

Truth is what you refer to as "morality" in this case is merely a knee jerk reaction you've made without first exploring the subject. You cannot even defend it in any manner, only able to if I borrow the frame work you used "ask people to eliminate any sense of logic from their arguments" and simply accept something is wrong... because it is. 

 

Do you truly think your point of view is untouchable? Or perhaps you were meaning to be use a past tense...?

 

I do not understand much of the last part of your claim, as it does not cohere into proper English. Although, I am not going to accept my point as invalid, just because you think it is.

 

So you admit that it is legitimate, alright thats something.

 

Homosexuality is a mental illness (again I'm not actually saying this), that do you? You know the other examples I could mention so I won't. Additionally as I said, morality is dubious on the matter and people don't really care for such animals. Some people are consistent and can claim legitimately to do so but most... just can't. They see animals as completely inferior and everything else that has been mentioned is perfectly acceptable but sex suddenly is some grand evil. However you did acknowledge this so saying this to you doesn't have much point I suppose, but everyone can read so perhaps it makes somebody think.

 

Well I would say that with the issue of guns there is a destructive element involved in the matter. Bestiality is in essence harmless if everything is medially cleared. As is sticking your member in somebody else's buttocks. As is... so on. 

 

Saying that everybody thinks of animals as inferior is a complete generalisation of the human race. Some people worship cows as their deities, making themselves inferior to cows. I, myself, believe that animals should be given basic rights, as to not be experimented on, killed, consumed, or raped. As I have said previously, certain rights are applied to certain animals, and consent just happens to be a universal right in most countries. The reason of which, is because those countries consider it to be animal abuse.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Dimitri Valko

[Four]

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

 

This is a verbal warning to each of you in this thread to maintain the lines of debate on the current topic addressed in the OP. Many of you are crossing the line to personal remarks/comments - stray from that path.

 

My next post will be a thread lock.

[EliteCanada]

 

 

For the first bit; approximately four percent of the world's population is homosexual/bisexual, and the people attracted to their own sex are not attracted to them because they are mentally impaired, unlike those who are sexually attracted by animals. Bestiality is much less common and is considered a mental disorder by modern scientists.

 

http://www.disorders.net/beastiality/

 

 

According to that link bestiality is a disorder/mental illness. I take a huge problem with your statement now for two substantial reasons. The first is because according to that website they classify it is as a mental disorder for the mere reason of it being deviant. Therefore, according to this site and to you since you linked it, anyone who does anything deviant (another way of saying different) is because they have a mental disorder/mental illness? With how different, multicultural and multi-faceted human beings are how does one honestly justify saying that. If you're going to say being deviant isn't a disorder, but bestiality is a disorder because that website says it is and it doesn't say deviance is that's merely arguing semantics. The only perceptible reasoning the site has for calling bestiality a disorder is because it's different. No proof has been discovered to show that bestiality is caused by mental impairment or cognitive damages.

 

Even if this, having a deviant sexual preference, is considered as a disorder (which I find to be a joke in of itself, for that is akin to saying anyone who does anything differently suffers from a disorder/mental illness) how does that make it wrong precisely? People suffering from OCD have a disorder, but their actions (for the most part) isn't morally deplorable are shit on by the law. 

 

The second, and most important, issue with this statement is that you're saying that something that is caused by a disorder, and let me repeat this for emphasis, something caused by a disorder should be a crime. An activity in which the said person is suffering from a disorder and cannot help themselves should be thrown behind bars. I do not know what to say about persons who think that people should be sent away behind bars for acts they cannot control, nor choose to desire or not. It takes a "unique" perspective for a person to say that bestiality is a disorder and then tell me that someone caught committing sexual activities with an animal should be sent behind bars, as well as stigmatized and humiliated further by mainstream society. That's the exact same thing as saying someone who has Parkinson's disease and has trouble moving should be sent behind bars and subjected to the cruelty of human stigmatization and ridicule. 

 

I cannot stress how flawed this is. You do not deal with a mental disorder through stigmatization and incarnation. I'll make a new post for the rest of the things you said, but that is an awful thing to believe. Not subjectively, but that is objectively 100% awful. "Hey guys this person has a disorder, let's throw him behind bars and call him a abnormal sicko."

 

P.S. Your point on homosexuality is arguing nothing but semantics. Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual, they are born with that preference (as are people who "suffer" from bestiality). What a rofl reason (semantics) to be pro-gay rights and anti-bestiality. If you really need me to get you a source for that I will, but they are both deviant, and you are born with the preference for both. It is simply not a choice and is a misconception to think it is. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada

[EliteCanada]

The second rephrasing makes absolutely no sense in that context. Human beings can provide each other with consent, while animals cannot. That was the stated point, and changing the words takes away it's meaning.

 

For the third and final one, a child cannot be born as a direct product of homosexuality. Although virgin births do occur (through a condition known as testicular feminisation), it is not due to homosexuality, and the children do not look different from normal children. While the opinion that inter-racial children look different than to that of different races can be used in an argument against inter-racial relationships, the children are not genetic freaks, like the human-animal hybrids created in laboratories. Hybrids between humans and other animals are not meant to exist naturally, while the children of inter-racial couples can easily be created through sexual intercourse.

 

 

 

 

When you say it makes absolutely no sense I think you may find it does if you try to think about it more closely. With bestiality and homosexuality people can both say "how could men do that with *fill in the blank (animals/other men)*". Regardless, you're getting off the point a lot. We aren't talking about consent here, just that people use both lines of reasoning for different standpoints (one of which is supported and the other isn't for no definable reason). And don't get me wrong people do say that for each of them. Whether you do or not is irrelevant (even though you actually do use those reasons to be anti-bestiality, but don't even consider how they could be used to be anti-homosexuality), what I am saying is that your line of argument is used for both homosexuality and bestiality yet some choose to support one and not the other due to this line of reasoning (with the answer for homosexuality being because it's their own personal choice they can do that to one another). I cannot even comprehend how you can argue this. People, including you, do use both lines of arguments as justification for the criminalization/legalization of either.

 

 

For your second point; what? Human animal hybrids created from laboratories? What does this have to do with bestiality lol? I honestly have no idea where that came from. Bestiality is not making love to an animal in a laboratory and making human animal hybrids friend. Also with your second point you seem to be missing the point of what I'm saying. The point is that your line of reasoning can be and is used by people despite factual relevance or not. People do use that line of reasoning. Don't kid yourself. The point is that people are afraid of the off-spring of homosexuals being homosexual themselves and that people argue those things. 

 

 

 

Hybrids between humans and other animals are not meant to exist naturally

 

By that reason the following aren't meant to exist naturally: drugs, medicine, clothing, homes, commodities or literally anything created by mankind. I guarantee you that laptops don't exist naturally in nature. Seems like a hypocritical line of, dare I say it, "reasoning". Also, still have no idea why you're talking about hybrids.

 

 

 

 

Bestiality is "deplorable", it is a horrendous thing caused by mental illness. While some early scientists would also consider homosexuality a mental illness, that logic is not considered true by a modern-day scientific standpoint, unlike bestiality.

 

Saying that bestiality is deplorable and horrendous is akin to saying literally any act caused by any mental illness deplorable. If you say otherwise it is due to subjective opinions and based off of precisely 0 facts. Your point on homosexuality is naught but semantics. You are both born with homosexual tendencies and bestial ones. You do not choose. Furthermore the current "scientific" community cannot find and causes for bestial tendencies and so why is it considered a disorder vs homosexuality where cognitive deviance can be pointed out? 

 

TLDR: Let me quote something I said

 

 

You don't think these can be used against homosexual or interracial couples eh? Let's swap a few of the words out and see how it looks

 

First off, people typically don't find other members of their sex attractive.

Second off, who would do that to another man or woman? 

Third off, homsexual/interracial-animal hybrids... ugh.

 

I am not arguing the content of these sentences. I am saying that people can use these reasons against homosexuality, as you are using them against bestiality. The only difference is pronouns. Let me say it again, for I think you are missing the point, people use these reasons and ask these things of homosexuality as you are doing for bestiality. People typically don't find other member of their sex attractive (key word is typically). Secondly some people do ask why would anyone want to have sex with another man/woman and lastly some people are afraid of children being born as homosexuals. I am not saying it is right, just that people use these reasons.

 

Edit: sorry if this is incoherent. 3:30AM typing op please nerf.

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada

[Rozalia]

Homosexuality was also a mental illness. Additionally you should know animal-human hybrids aren't possible so why you're even mentioning it is odd, and there is such a thing as being a zoosexual. It's a orientation like the rest. 

 

Wind the clock back and you'd find homosexuality and interracial there.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

 

A list of paraphilias for you. Calling for example men who like big women mentally ill is... not all paraphilias are "equal" is what I'm getting at. 

 

You have not presented valid points, and questioning the idea that the thing you have sex with also wants to have sex with you, is absurd. You act as if the animal's thoughts mean nothing.

 

Dismissing == not valid. They don't, I've made my case based on the dubious morality and the ridiculous notion of consent when it comes to animals.

 

I'm not close-minded, I just found that point of your's to be invalid. It simply does not apply to all animals. If I killed my hypothetical dog, I would be imprisoned (in most US states and most countries, unless it was a euthanisation). If I raped my hypothetical dog, I would be imprisoned (in all US states and most countries). If I ate my hypothetical dog, I would be imprisoned (in 44 of 50 US states and most countries). For whatever reason, although these basic rights of "do not kill, not not eat, do not rape" apply to household pets, such as dogs and cats, they do not apply to livestock in a commercial setting. It is not legal to slaughter a livestock animal (cow, pig, etc.) in a residential setting inhumanely, and without reason. It is, allowed, though, if the cow was to be slaughtered in a commercial setting. Why the application of these laws are different for different animals are beyond me, I, personally, find that all animals should be given at least these three basic rights. I do not condone the slaughter of animals, the consumption of animals, or the rape of animals, just as I do not condone the slaughter, consumption, or rape of human beings. So, you are wrong in stating that only consent applies to animals. If I were to straight-up rip a hypothetical cow's head off in my garage, I would be imprisoned, yet we are allowed to consume cows due to the commercialisation of meat, in which cows are meant to be humanely slaughtered, as they are seen as less than household pets by most laws. It is legal to slaughter some animals, it's legal to consume some animals, but it's illegal to have sex with all animals. Why? For the same reason it is illegal to torture animals, and subject them to cruel treatment. Because it's considered to be animal abuse.

 

Your initial responses say otherwise. 

 

Actually if you have a Hen you can kill it at will. The same would apply to other such livestock animals I would assume logically. You can't bring it out onto the city centre and execute it but in your own residence you can. 

 

No, the point is that this "consent" does not apply in all of the instances I mentioned, but oddly it does when it comes to matters of sex. You have not explained why, and mentioning a bunch of scenarios which you are actually incorrect on does not help you.

 

Do you truly think your point of view is untouchable? Or perhaps you were meaning to be use a past tense...?

 

I do not understand much of the last part of your claim, as it does not cohere into proper English. Although, I am not going to accept my point as invalid, just because you think it is.

 

What are you getting at here? My statement was true at the time I made it, posting an actual argument and going "whats this now?" doesn't make any sense. For the second bit I borrowed your words to form the sentence I responded to you with. 

 

Saying that everybody thinks of animals as inferior is a complete generalisation of the human race. Some people worship cows as their deities, making themselves inferior to cows. I, myself, believe that animals should be given basic rights, as to not be experimented on, killed, consumed, or raped. As I have said previously, certain rights are applied to certain animals, and consent just happens to be a universal right in most countries. The reason of which, is because those countries consider it to be animal abuse.

 

You are incorrect, I mentioned the Vegans who are an exception. Everybody else though even if like you can talk of caring... don't as much as they say. That is unless you are a Vegan then alright, but if not you clearly have qualms with animals being abused, slaughtered and such as long as you're not around to see it.

 

I am aware of cow worship, people also worshiped trees, it's all quite irrelevant in the context we're talking about as in western society.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rozalia

[Spite]

There's a moral and legal difference between killing an animal for food, and (for example) ripping off it's skin whilst it's still alive. Just because something is your property, doesn't mean you can torture it or be cruel to it. Whether that's beating your dog savagely, or raping it, it's still animal cruelty.

[Hereno]

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

 

This is a verbal warning to each of you in this thread to maintain the lines of debate on the current topic addressed in the OP. Many of you are crossing the line to personal remarks/comments - stray from that path.

 

My next post will be a thread lock.

 

yeah, punish OP by locking their thread because nobody will show them respect

 

brilliant

 

There's a moral and legal difference between killing an animal for food, and (for example) ripping off it's skin whilst it's still alive. Just because something is your property, doesn't mean you can torture it or be cruel to it. Whether that's beating your dog savagely, or raping it, it's still animal cruelty.

 

not sure if you used this example on purpose but this actually happens frequently in the fur industry

 

there's nothing quite like watching a dude skin something alive and then throw its skinless bleeding but still alive body on top of a pile of other skinless, bleeding animals to make you reconsider the whole nonviolence being a good idea thing

Edited March 26, 2016 by Hereno

[Mutsuo Toi]

 

Bestiality is degenerate, I don't care is immoral or not. It just plain degeneracy. End of stories

Edited March 26, 2016 by lizard noob

[Doktor Avalanche]

you mean the constitution that was written by slave owners who compromised on having slaves count as 3/5 of a person, forbade women from voting or owning property, and restricted the vote to people who owned a certain amount of land?

 

not to derail this thread, but lmao at unironically believing shit like this while at the same time thinking rozalia is literally hitler for posing a philosophical question

Have you ever read the Constitution? With the exception of land ownership, nothing of what you stated is in the document. Have you ever studied any of the Forefathers, as many who signed the document were actually Abolitionists. Seriously, look deeper into the document and you may find out the United States is not as evil as your generation is making it out to be. Funny how what your complaint is what Europe held to as well at that time. Is it perfect? No.

And in this entire forum thread have I ever referred to Rozalia as Hitler? Not once. As I have stated, I completely understand where Rozalia's argument is coming from. We simply have a disagreement on the content itself.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Lord Asmodeus

[EliteCanada]

Have you ever read the Constitution? With the exception of land ownership, nothing of what you stated is in the document. Have you ever studied any of the Forefathers, as many who signed the document were actually Abolitionists. Seriously, look deeper into the document and you may find out the United States is not as evil as your generation is making it out to be. Funny how what your complaint is what Europe held to as well at that time. Is it perfect? No.

And in this entire forum thread have I ever referred to Rozalia as Hitler? Not once. As I have stated, I completely understand where Rozalia's argument is coming from. We simply have a disagreement on the content itself.

 

He was talking about the beliefs of the men who fathered the constitution, not the document itself (unless I'm mistaken). I also don't think he was talking about you in the last part as well, just other people in general in this thread.

 

 

 

Bestiality is degenerate, I don't care is immoral or not. It just plain degeneracy. End of stories

 

Same could be said about anything else in this world. Subjective opinion is subjective and brings nothing to this discussion. 

 

P.S. I tried to reread this thread, but things got too toxic after the first few comments and my desire to smash face against wall was too strong to continue reading.

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada

[Hereno]

Have you ever read the Constitution? With the exception of land ownership, nothing of what you stated is in the document. Have you ever studied any of the Forefathers, as many who signed the document were actually Abolitionists. Seriously, look deeper into the document and you may find out the United States is not as evil as your generation is making it out to be. Funny how what your complaint is what Europe held to as well at that time. Is it perfect? No.

And in this entire forum thread have I ever referred to Rozalia as Hitler? Not once. As I have stated, I completely understand where Rozalia's argument is coming from. We simply have a disagreement on the content itself.

 

The Three-Fifths Compromise, is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments, four in particular were ratified to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:

 

"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870)

"On account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920)

"By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" for federal elections (24th Amendment, 1964)[nb 1]

"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971)

have YOU read it?

Edited March 26, 2016 by Hereno

[fistofdoom]

lock it

[EliteCanada]

I don't see anything productive from having sexual intercourse with an animal, doesn't even produce a offspring. We shouldn't encourage such acts, mainly with wild animals, but if you love that risk, go ahead and take it.

 

It's pointless and in my opinion; gross.

 

Actually, I missed this post on the first page. This is how you post an opinion without straight up insulting the other person. Perfect post. 10/10

 

 

lock it

 

Only reason to lock it would be because many people seem to be incapable of rationally discussing morality w/o resorting to "you're an animal rapist" or  "you're retarded." Even then the people saying these things should receive warnings for ooc attacks and disrupting the thread.

 

 

I cannot help but feel fear for you if you felt perfectly fine with bringing up a clearly taboo subject the way that you did here. You have got to have known it would not go 'swimmingly'.

 

I cannot help fear for man kind if we cannot discuss the morality of laws without the subject being taboo and the person bringing up the discussion being referred to as Hitler, a sicko, and someone who wants to take part in bestiality (even though he outright says he wouldn't himself do it). 

Edited March 26, 2016 by EliteCanada