Beastiality

[Qonfused]

I bet you'd love to squeeze my udders.

 

[Flyingdebris]

its wrong because sticking your penis up some animal makes you a sick ****. And if we don't keep the act illegal or at least frowned upon, then sick ****s can be more open about what they enjoy doing to livestock and other people begin to think there's no problem with it. And you end up with lots more people ****ing animals because there's less of a taboo about it.

In the end the world becomes a much grosser place.

I mean have you ever taken the time to hang out at the depths of the internet, below the bottom of the barrel as it where. There are so many kinds of sick ****s there, its crazy. All you have to do is condone 1 kind of sick **** behavior and those freaks will just bubble up from the depths with the rest. To get a better idea, visit portal of Evil or 4chan for a week. Now imagine those people no longer restricted to the internet

 

[Ikerous]

I mean have you ever taken the time to hang out at the depths of the internet, below the bottom of the barrel as it where. There are so many kinds of sick ****s there, its crazy. All you have to do is condone 1 kind of sick **** behavior and those freaks will just bubble up from the depths with the rest. To get a better idea, visit portal of Evil or 4chan for a week. Now imagine those people no longer restricted to the internet

I visit stormfront.org quite frequently

In the end the world becomes a much grosser place.

Same could be said about homosexual marriage
In the end that makes the world a much grosser place.
But as long as you can't tell me anything that's wrong about it, then why not let them do it?

 

[Raeven0]

"X should be illegal because I believe X to be repulsive and sickening"

Replace X with any of the following to make your own bigoted, stupid opinion:
"Homosexuality"
"Bestiality"
"Having a vagina"
"Automobiles"
"Bunnies"
"Reality television"

 

[Ikerous]

Exactly the point I was trying to make
Many thanks

 

[Raziaar]

I visit stormfront.org quite frequently

Why do you visit that place? It's repulsive.

 

[Kangy]

I don't want semen on my steak.

 

[Ikerous]

Why do you visit that place? It's repulsive.

It's intrigueing
They express a lot of views I've never heard before
Although, I don't agree with them, I enjoy hearing a new perspective

I don't want semen on my steak.

I don't want shit on my steak

 

[Raeven0]

Although, I don't agree with them, I enjoy hearing a new perspective

Maybe you'd be interested in the Flat Earth Society. I tried to read some of the posts once, but they broke my Stupidmetre and sent me on a genocidal rampage that left nine dead and seven wounded.

Oh, no, that was someone else. Sorry.

 

[Ikerous]

Maybe you'd be interested in the Flat Earth Society. I tried to read some of the posts once, but they broke my Stupidmetre and sent me on a genocidal rampage that left nine dead and seven wounded.

Oh, no, that was someone else. Sorry.

Thats actually quite funny

 

[Sulkdodds]

Holy shit, Raeven - do they believe that the people sailing around the earth, as well as space travel, are all fakes set up as some kind of conspiracy?

Fine, **** it Ikerous, you win. Animals have absolutely no rights. Kill them all. Rape them, abuse them for sexual pleasure, breed them for their fur and other commodities, wholesale slaughter them for a gluttonous lifestyle. I don't care. They're stupid, they don't know any better... and as a collective whole they're not privy to what's happening to them. So do whatever you want then to them, if that's how you feel, if you feel they are just objects for us to use in ways other than a small part of our food source.

He doesn't feel like that. What he's saying is that, while he could not bring himself to practise bestiality himself, he also cannot bring himself to object to bestiality if he does not object to animals being killed and 'enslaved'.

The main argument against bestiality (bar pain, cruelty - good argument too) is that of consent. But his point is that we already break that law in multiple ways every day by doing things to animals without their consent. Thus, if you object to bestiality but do not object to the slaughter of animals for meat (runs his reasoning) you are being hypocritical. I am not sure if he is actually 'against' bestiality as such but he did state that he was against "all animal abuse".

Yes, we need meat to eat, but it's arguable that we kill way more animals than necessary.

However! I argue the following:

We do not 'enslave' animals. Earlier I asked about capability, and you shrugged it off - but either you were missing my point or didn't want to discuss it.

Does keeping a dog domestically or keeping a cow for milk constitute slavery if the animal is not capable of acting at the same level that a human does? A cow, left to its own devices, will walk around, eat, sleep, shit, maybe mate, eat, sleep, shit, eat, sleep, shit. That is all it will do for its whole life. You could say that it isn't wrong to keep mad people in mental institutions or mentally disabled people essentially 'imprisoned' in special schools and facilities if they are not capable of operating in society or with other human beings. The same, it's possible to argue, is true of animals.

Meanwhile, in many cases, the animal consents to its domesticity. If a dog did not want you to domesticate it, it would be quite capable of getting away. I know a lot of people keep theirs on leashes or tied up, but there is always a point where they could escape if determined. The same is true of cats - in fact, cats often disappear for days on end (that's why I <3 cats...because it's almost like they domesticate us ) and if they did not consent to their relationship with their human 'owner' they would simply not come back. The same can be said of quite a lot of animals...

And while you're telling me how it's wrong to train an animal, to condition it, what do you think about the fact that every human being is essentially and irevocably conditioned partly by their upbringing and partly by society? Conditioning is impossible to avoid.

I know it has been said already but you could use the same logic you're applying to having sex with animals to having sex with a comatose girl. That logic is

1. The victim wouldn't feel anything
2. You wouldn't contract a disease due to protection
3. You wouldn't tell the victim what happened after if they ever wake up

Right. And the reason that logic is horrible is because of the issue of consent. See above for that.

 

[Solaris]

And I can counter the consent issue.
In my previous post that no-one responded too (it was last post on a page).
I described how I had scene beastiality in pr0n on someones mobile phone.
It was however a dog ****ing a women. It new what it was doing, and both the dog and the women enjoed themselves.

Why is that immoral?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hey, I acknowledged it!

The answer is...maybe...no? Not sure really.

In any case, it would be quite hard to make such a law workable. "Bestiality is illegal unless initiated by the animal." The extent to which animals are ruled by their instincts, rather than the other way round, is unclear, so it might not even be consenting. At the same time, people could rape poor fluffy kittens and then claim retroactively that the kitten initiated it.

 

[Solaris]

Hey, I acknowledged it!

The answer is...maybe...no? Not sure really.

In any case, it would be quite hard to make such a law workable. "Bestiality is illegal unless initiated by the animal." The extent to which animals are ruled by their instincts, rather than the other way round, is unclear, so it might not even be consenting. At the same time, people could rape poor fluffy kittens and then claim retroactively that the kitten initiated it.

I rofled.
It would be unworkable.
I actually hold the view that killing animals is wrong, but I support it becuase I'm not perfect.

 

[Ikerous]

Wow, alright, lemme take a shot at this XD

Does keeping a dog domestically or keeping a cow for milk constitute slavery if the animal is not capable of acting at the same level that a human does? A cow, left to its own devices, will walk around, eat, sleep, shit, maybe mate, eat, sleep, shit, eat, sleep, shit. That is all it will do for its whole life. You could say that it isn't wrong to keep mad people in mental institutions or mentally disabled people essentially 'imprisoned' in special schools and facilities if they are not capable of operating in society or with other human beings. The same, it's possible to argue, is true of animals.

But do those crazy people consent to being locked up? Or do we ignore their lack of consent? And these animals would be able to do just fine in their society. In their society all animals do nothing more than eat sleep and have sex. Although I'm not really sure what you meant by all this. Cows are like crazy people?

Meanwhile, in many cases, the animal consents to its domesticity. If a dog did not want you to domesticate it, it would be quite capable of getting away. I know a lot of people keep theirs on leashes or tied up, but there is always a point where they could escape if determined. The same is true of cats - in fact, cats often disappear for days on end (that's why I <3 cats...because it's almost like they domesticate us ) and if they did not consent to their relationship with their human 'owner' they would simply not come back. The same can be said of quite a lot of animals...

But what about the first day I buy a full grown cat from the pet store and bring it home. If I place it right in my door frame where it could either run away or come inside, don't most cats run away? It's only after it realizes that you have food that it'll stay with you. So the innitial act of taking the pet often seems against it's will, and always w/o its consent. Although, as a society I don't think we really care much, do we? Wether the cat comes in or runs out, we're going to keep it anyways. Which is the point I was getting at. Their consent one way or the other doesn't mean anything to us.

And I think I said i have no damn clue about your story solaris XD
But I've been trying to only focus on the issue of cow sex so that posts on other subjects aren't taken out of context and applied to cow sex

 

[Manhack #5678]

I gotta say, at least for me, I say its wrong simply because the Bible says so. I dont know if anyone else has said that, but I kind of read a few pages then skipped to the end, hehe. But in the first place, who would really want to?

 

[Solaris]

I gotta say, at least for me, I say its wrong simply because the Bible says so. I dont know if anyone else has said that, but I kind of read a few pages then skipped to the end, hehe. But in the first place, who would really want to?

As long as you actively engage in the stoning of people who work on the sabbath I will not call you a hypocrit.

Cox sex ftw.

 

[Ikerous]

I gotta say, at least for me, I say its wrong simply because the Bible says so. I dont know if anyone else has said that, but I kind of read a few pages then skipped to the end, hehe. But in the first place, who would really want to?

According to the Bible I should kill the person if they have sex with a cow.

Leviticus 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Leviticus 20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[Manhack #5678]

Yes,in the *Old Testemant*. The bible very clearly revises its rules after the begining of the New Testemant. Like when the adultress came to Jesus and he, according to the old testemant should have stoned her, but he didnt, did he? And just because it states a punishment that isn't used today, does that make it any less wrong?

 

[Solaris]

Yes,in the *Old Testemant*. The bible very clearly revises its rules after the begining of the New Testemant. Like when the adultress came to Jesus and he, according to the old testemant should have stoned her, but he didnt, did he?

And he was punished for his sins on the cross.

Now back on topic.
The bible is awful reasoning to argue a point.

 

[Manhack #5678]

Okay, I'll get off the bible and leave you guys alone to your argument as soon as we get one thing straight. Jesus was not punished for his sins on the cross. Why? Because he never sinned! Just want to make sure thats very clear...

 

[Solaris]

Okay, I'll get off the bible and leave you guys alone to your argument as soon as we get one thing straight. Jesus was not punished for his sins on the cross. Why? Because he never sinned! Just want to make sure thats very clear...

Sigh.
Stone homosexuals or shush.

 

[Manhack #5678]

Sigh.
Stone homosexuals or shush

We're not talking about homo's here, we're talking about... beastiality-ers... Anyway, I agree that to use the Bible as proof of something who doesnt believe the Bible would be a bad idea.

 

[Ikerous]

We're not talking about homo's here, we're talking about... beastiality-ers... Anyway, I agree that to use the Bible as proof of something who doesnt believe the Bible would be a bad idea.

Leviticus 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

If you're against bestiality on Biblical principles, then you also have to be for killing them afterwards
Unless you only believe in the new testament, which doesn't say jack about bestiality

 

[Manhack #5678]

After Jesus' manifestation in the human body, a new element was brought into the world: forgiveness and mercy. What the bible says you should do doesnt make it any less wrong initially. My only point that I am trying to make is that if you believe the Bible as truth, then it says that it is wrong, no questions asked, just wrong. Thats my only point.

 

[Ikerous]

Don't you find it odd that Jesus was sitting up in heaven that whole time making up all these laws about killing ppl for bestiality and then all of the sudden when he's human he's all about forgiveness? If he's perfect wouldn't he be the same throughout time?

 

[Manhack #5678]

God and Jesus do a thing throughout the scripture that only makes sense: as humanity changes, he changes with humanity to make sure that as many people as possible could be saved. And, before Jesus came to Earth, men could redeem themselves through animal sacrifices. So there technically was still forgiveness, but another form. But after he came, he became the ultimate sacrifice for the rest of humanity. Now, the idea behind sacrifice was that you use a sinless vessel to remove your sins. Jesus never once sinned, and so he became the ultimate sacrifice for everyone. So now people just have to accept the forgiveness instead of doing something physically to be redeemed.

 

[Ikerous]

God and Jesus do a thing throughout the scripture that only makes sense: as humanity changes, he changes with humanity to make sure that as many people as possible could be saved. And, before Jesus came to Earth, men could redeem themselves through animal sacrifices. So there technically was still forgiveness, but another form. But after he came, he became the ultimate sacrifice for the rest of humanity. Now, the idea behind sacrifice was that you use a sinless vessel to remove your sins. Jesus never once sinned, and so he became the ultimate sacrifice for everyone. So now people just have to accept the forgiveness instead of doing something physically to be redeemed.

How exactly can you redeem yourself if you've been killed for what you've done?
The old testament says if you **** a cow you die and have no chance to repent.

And if god is all good then why would he change what's right and wrong as people (who are inherantly sinful) change?

 

[Vegeta897]

Holy crap derail.

I'm with Ikerous, his side has all the logic here.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Before I continue I'd just like to laugh at the flat earthists.

IN NATURE RIVERS DESCEND FROM HIGHER LEVELS TO LOWER LEVELS

IN THE MATHEMATICAL SPHERICAL EARTH THE RIVERS CLIMB UP THE CURVES!

Do you know what, I thought 'they can't think it's that simple. That must hide some cunning logic.' But you know what? It actually is 'the earth must be flat, because otherwise rivers couldn't run downhill over such distances'. Sorry, have you heard of gravity? D:

But do those crazy people consent to being locked up? Or do we ignore their lack of consent? And these animals would be able to dojust fine in their society. In their society all animals do nothing more than eat sleep and have sex. Although I'm not really sure what you meant by all this. Cows are like crazy people?

Essentially, we judge that crazy people aren't capable of operating in normal society, and so we don't let them. We...I guess my point was, we 'domesticate them'. But the reason for this is because in our society they would cease to function. As arrogant as it sounds, we give them a society they can live in.

That's actually a very murky moral debate in itself. Er.

What I mean is this: you said "
Animals don't have that option. They can't get an education or start a business." This is correct. But they can't do all that stuff because they are incapable of it. You might call what we do to, say, cows kept for milk 'slavery' but in the end, you said it yourself: all a cow is going to do anyway is eat, shit, sleep. We are not enslaving it. It's doing everything it does normally (milking is a couple of hours in the morning...essentially it is the cow 'working' to earn its keep - an imposition we are all subject to!).

What I'm saying is, I don't think there's anything much wrong (most of the time) with the way in which we domesticate animals.

Take a gecko. I don't think it's immoral to keep a gecko in a glass case with enough food, water, etc, when the gecko would be in exactly the same conditions in the wild. The only difference would be that it is in a smaller area - and to be frank, that makes no difference considering the size of the gecko's brain in comparison to his head.

It seems as if at some point we have to say 'fvck it - the thing's just too damn stupid.

But what about the first day I buy a full grown cat from the pet store and bring it home. If I place it right in my door frame where it could either run away or come inside, don't most cats run away? It's only after it realizes that you have food that it'll stay with you. So the innitial act of taking the pet often seems against it's will, and always w/o its consent. Although, as a society I don't think we really care much, do we? Wether the cat comes in or runs out, we're going to keep it anyways. Which is the point I was getting at. Their consent one way or the other doesn't mean anything to us.

I don't actually know if most cats run away. Maybe you should do a study! :E

Well, consider this: a toddler, left to his own devices in a park, might well run away. If it doesn't understand the situation it's in, then yes, it'll run. You actually summed up their relationship with us - they stay because we have food, and because it's easier than hunting/surviving. In this way, their relationship with us is entirely consensual: an alliance of convenience. If the cat is enslaved, then so to is a child to his or her parents.

And while we may take a cat from a pet shop without consent, are we not also born without consent?

If our domestication of cats (specifically) constitutes slavery and a breach of consent, so too does the entire human society. While this applies very well to cats, it can also be applied to most domesticated animals (at least the intelligent ones).

 

[Ikerous]

I never said I was against owning pets or farms...
In fact for my argument to work, you have to accept pet ownership as acceptable
So I'm not really sure where you're going :/
In fact I think you're helping to prove my point

 

[Vegeta897]

Well, consider this: a toddler, left to his own devices in a park, might well run away. If it doesn't understand the situation it's in, then yes, it'll run. You actually summed up their relationship with us - they stay because we have food, and because it's easier than hunting/surviving.

Actually, toddlers are different than animals, they don't have a desire to "run away" .. Where would they go? Toddlers would only leave if they saw or heard or wanted something that was not in their current location. Shiny red ball! Let's go after it.
If a toddler doesn't see anything it wants, it's much more content to just sit there and see what its fingers taste like.

 

[Solaris]

You just made me rofl again when I thought of the point that perphaps we should be aloud to rape crazy people.

 

[Manhack #5678]

God never changes what is wrong or right, just the way out. And about killing thing, God gives a procedure to go by. People were stoned after they were given a chance to ask for forgiveness. Ever heard of Stephen? The first martyr? He was preaching the true gospel, and the leaders of the church wanted it stopped, so they accused him of false prophecy. They told him to repent and stop, but since he was actually doing the right thing, he didnt. So, they took him out and stoned him.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I never said I was against owning pets or farms...
In fact for my argument to work, you have to accept pet ownership as acceptable
So I'm not really sure where you're going :/
In fact I think you're helping to prove my point

Nonono, you were saying it would be hypocritical to object to both bestiality and domestication of animals.

I'm arguing that it's not! I'm arguing that you can believe domestication and pet ownership is acceptable but that you can believe bestiality is unnacceptable.

You know what? I'm probably wrong. But this is interesting.

Actually, toddlers are different than animals, they don't have a desire to "run away" .. Where would they go? Toddlers would only leave if they saw or heard or wanted something that was not in their current location. Shiny red ball! Let's go after it.
If a toddler doesn't see anything it wants, it's much more content to just sit there and see what its fingers taste like.

1. Where's the evidence that toddlers wouldn't ever just run away randomly?
2. Where's the evidence that kiddens would never just run away randomly?
Have you never experienced a small child just "wandering off"?

 

[Solaris]

God never changes what is wrong or right, just the way out. And about killing thing, God gives a procedure to go by. People were stoned after they were given a chance to ask for forgiveness. Ever heard of Stephen? The first martyr? He was preaching the true gospel, and the leaders of the church wanted it stopped, so they accused him of false prophecy. They told him to repent and stop, but since he was actually doing the right thing, he didnt. So, they took him out and stoned him.

So morality is relative to how progressive we are?

 

[Ikerous]

God never changes what is wrong or right, just the way out. And about killing thing, God gives a procedure to go by. People were stoned after they were given a chance to ask for forgiveness. Ever heard of Stephen? The first martyr? He was preaching the true gospel, and the leaders of the church wanted it stopped, so they accused him of false prophecy. They told him to repent and stop, but since he was actually doing the right thing, he didnt. So, they took him out and stoned him.

The amount that you missed my point makes my head hurt...
But I'm not going to argue about it anymore XD
Make another thread about it and I'd love to join you in there

 

[Solaris]

Good point.
So do you think we should be able to rape crazy people?

 

[Manhack #5678]

Sry, I missed your point, I'm not the best at arguing, hehe. And as for Solaris' post:
Like I said, God never changes what is right or wrong, just the path to forgiveness.

 

[Ikerous]

Nonono, you were saying it would be hypocritical to object to both bestiality and domestication of animals.

I'm arguing that it's not! I'm arguing that you can believe domestication and pet ownership is acceptable but that you can believe bestiality is unnacceptable.

You know what? I'm probably wrong. But this is interesting.

So would you agree or disagree that in almost all facets of society we don't give animals the right of consent?