Morality of bestiality (Was: End bestiality on Fchan!)

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721 761 801 841 881 921 961 1001
at 6 May 2006: 22:22

Well...because it is.  But whatever. I'm done here. You guys really should just drop it though before it gets outta hand.  I don't see this having a 'happy ending' of sorts. :P

322Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 22:31

 Besides, science lost it's ability to be an authority the moment the scientific community allowed psychology and other 'soft sciences' call themselves 'science' and demand the same respect as hard science, without adhering to basic scientific principles.  It's all been down hill from there. 

When science becomes as much a matter of faith as religion (IE: This is a fact, but only works *if* you accept common, unprovable assumptions like 'God' or unvaried 'probability' constructed on limited factors and ignoring everything that doesn't 'fit') then 'fact' and 'opinion' becomes much the same, and the only authority we have left is a pragmatic philosophy based simply on observation and logic (the same principles that spawn 'science' before it got all messed up). 

Several pragmatic philosophies have already been expressed regarding the so called 'morality of besitiality' and have been completely ignored or dismissed, either because they work (which is no fun, and leaves nothing to argue about) or because they conflict with various unpragmatic philosophies (Eww, it's icky, something must be done!) and/or the Cult of Science (well, you don't KNOW for a FACT) who seems to still believe there's such things as univeral absolutes in a subjective reality that can be found by means other than practical experiment and observation.

In short, people will argue because they like arguing, rather than accept any of the nurmerous *reasonable*  (albeit practical and unsatisfying in that ego-gratifying sort of 'I win' way) conclusions that have been presented. 

Such is life.  I just figure I can have some fun throwing their own nonesense back in their faces, ergo >>311 and >>307

Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery...  At least when it's not intended as mockery.  :)

323Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 22:51

Well, if your fun is making other people unhappy, then that makes you a jerk, and you should probably stop posting.  Seriously, why do people feel compelled to interrupt people who are having a discussion?  A click away is a picture thread about babies being molested in their nursery, so it's not the content which offends.  If you think it's boring, don't read it, and if you think they're stuck up, just think it, and then don't post.  Don't justify mean spirited shit-disturbing as some sort of intellectual exercise.

Anyhow, as for science, yes, it's based on fact, but the facts surrounding hard math aren't hurt by psychology.  They can call themselves whatever they want, and the facts remain.  That's the beauty of facts.  They're there regardless of us.

On the down side, they don't apply to anything here except when describing "What I did" scenerios.  Rather, "accepted" facts are being discussed, and disputed, and even though you think accepted facts are bunk, they don't, so this entire discussion is completely valid.  For whatever reason, you and a bunch of others can't seem to abide this.

Anyhow, here's hoping that this post, and all the other posts talking about the thread's length or saying "this is stupid" are deleted, unless they actually bring something to the discussion.

at 6 May 2006: 23:09


I believe that this discussion was started with the sole purpose of causing strife.  Nothing good will come of it. Morality discussions don't even make sense on a site like this.  They only exist to cause problems.

325Report (sage)
at 6 May 2006: 23:11


Don't justify mean spirited shit-disturbing as some sort of

intellectual exercise.

At least I have an intellect to exercise, unlike most these ass-clowns.  :) 

Besides, I prefer to justify it as 'potentially educating the ignorant' which is an entirely different sort of arrogance than 'mean spirited shit disturbing'. 

It's okay though, I'm done now.  My apologies for any stepped on toes or feelings of inadequacy I might've wrought...

Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 00:25

To those of you who feels that the discussion is pointless, feel free to not read it.  I think the discussion is entertaining, and it will certainly make people on both sides have to excerice their brains a little.  So, if you don't enjoy it, stay out of it, and don't get in the way of those who actually enjoy the discussion.

I find it interesting to read other people's point of view, wheter they agree with me or not.  It's not pointless at all to find out what people on both sides of a debate are thinking and feeling.  Quite the opposite: It's constructive to learn of other people's opinions, wheter you agree with them or not.

at 7 May 2006: 00:35


The problem is it's not even a debate.  It's just a schoolyard fight. :P

Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 10:18

Oh, there are quite a few good posts from both sides.  But they are difficult to spot among the posts that don't contribute with much substance.

at 7 May 2006: 10:18

nah there isnt any name calling mud slinging ankle biting and crying yet :p
seriously ive enjoyed reading this all so far and tossing in a few thoughtfull tidbits here and there.

at 7 May 2006: 11:04

btw, if you think a post is jut a flame, there's the star to the side with which you can report it to the mods. :)

331Report (sage)
Joan-Michele#R9F5WG6Bjw at 7 May 2006: 12:01


Is there a link to a study that supports this 8% claim? (Why hasn't anyone else picked up on this?)

DragonFlame at 7 May 2006: 12:14

I have already given an example. I am tired of talking to you. And you can think what ever that makes you happy.

The whole reason I brought it up was to point out the stupidity of the argument. I totally agree with you. My point was that the mentality of some of the people on this board was that you Fail at Life because you have sex with animals while they sit at home jacking off to Furry Porn. These are not a Fail at Life but if one is then the other is also.

Dude you must be incredibly bored to read through all my posts. I have not read every single one of his posts but I have read at least 90 % of them and I agree he has twisted some things around but he at least gives a bit of explanation into why he believes that way. Juberu on the other hand has not said anything to explain why he thinks my opinions are wrong except to say that I am wrong because he thing I am some type of confused individual that does not know what I am talking about.
I at least try to be natural but when attacked I attack back it in my nature.
It is funny if I actually knew him I would think it was a personal attack.
And one more thing how do I know this isn’t Juberu himself. You defiantly write like Juberu.

Short and to the point I like that. I wish I could get my point through with that many words.
I am not being sarcastic, I’m serious.

The reason that there are no solid facts is because it is so hard to find them and when you do there are almost always strings attached.

This already has gone out of hand. This thread has the Title of the longest discussion on fchan.

That has to be the most constructive comment on this board. Great work dude.
Now if only you could convince every one to think the same way this world would be a better place.

Quite true. I have heard some really good points and facts from both sides. The problem is that the next few post you will have some nub come along and twist their words and make them look like fools.
And don’t think I’m talking about what is happening with me and Juberu.

Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 14:51

The number 8% is from a non-scientific study that took place among members of an online zoophile community in 1996.  Since it is not scientific, it maybe shouldn't be thought of as representative.

When I look it up in the scientific study of Dr. Hani Miletski, the number of zoophiles who are exclusively attracted to animals is 12% out of the 81 men who participated in her study. 0% of the 11 women in the study were exclusively zoophiles, though.  It is on page 171 in the book "Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia" by Dr.Hani Miletski.

Svansfall at 7 May 2006: 14:57

Thanks for the kind words, DragonFlame.

DragonFlame at 8 May 2006: 09:10

No problem.

I think this post has finaly run out of steam.
I think we can all agree that this is a Hot Topic that will in my opinion never be resolved. The only thing we can do is accept that every one has their own opinion and we are going to have to live with that.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 8 May 2006: 10:00

Juberu on the other hand has not said anything to explain why he thinks my opinions are wrong except to say that I am wrong because he thing I am some type of confused individual that does not know what I am talking about.

There's a difference between pointing out what I believe to be a fallacy, and saying that my opponent doesn't know what he's talking about. Guess which I haven't done?

Svansfall at 9 May 2006: 03:15

Looks as if the discussion is over?   I'm a little saddened to see that almost no one has questioned what I've written in my posts.   I enjoy a good debate.  Thanks to everyone who put in a little thinking before you added your posts to this discussion, especially Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. but thanks to everyone else also.

Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 9 May 2006: 03:44

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because...This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue posting it forever just because...

DragonFlame at 9 May 2006: 09:01

Cough Cough..........

The reason people were not questioning your post is because you made some good points. It always a good sign when people are speechless at what you have written so dont feel saddened.

Ahhh God it stuck in my Head. Damn You. ;)

at 9 May 2006: 21:23

So, do I get a medal or something for starting the longest thread in /dis/? ;)

Gedrean at 9 May 2006: 23:38

Isn't there a post limit in /dis/ posts?

at 10 May 2006: 01:34


Nobody really wants to repeat what's already been said and better, thus setting themselves up for various atacks on ther character for being "ignorant" and "closed minded". >>337 There's a lot to be said about your points, but I think  speak for a lot of the "not just bashing" types when I say Screw That!  I'm not discussing it here.  Sorry man, but every time someone makes a point about bestiality being wrong, like five people start picking apart every little thing they say, and then some jerks come in all jihad-like and lump everyone on this site as animal rapers, and then a bunch of people just post for the sake of posting, contributing nothing to the discussion.

It might be interesting to actually talk to you about this Svansfall, but not here. People can't seem to tolerate this discussion, and those that decide to post something constructive have only read the last few posts most of the time. Hell, I wasn't even going to reply, but something about DragonFlame's comment bugged me... that silence is somehow implied as agreement and awe. No. Just, no.

Svansfall at 10 May 2006: 03:02

I'd be more than happy to read your views, feelings and thoughts on the subject, and everyone else's also.  But where?

DragonFlame at 10 May 2006: 09:36

Silence.... What silence. You must be crazy its freaking loud.
LOL ;)

Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 10 May 2006: 13:47

>>342 "then a bunch of people just post for the sake of posting, contributing nothing to the discussion."

There's really nothing to discuss o.o
This is a board for smutty art and other art. It's not a board for any kind of RL porn. That's as far as a zoo debate should go on a smutty art board.

/345 GET!
//Let's next 400! =3

DragonFlame at 11 May 2006: 09:12

One more step to 400.  =)

at 11 May 2006: 19:37

Relevant to this discussion:

"Heavy Petting" by Peter Singer

here: http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp
or here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

348Report (sage)
at 11 May 2006: 21:05

Also relevent:  The book the guy you linked to reviews.  "Dearest Pet: On Bestiality" by Midas Dekkers. 

Though by this point it's probably rediculous to expect folks would be willing to read any take on the subject that wasn't at all heavily biased in either direction in favour of people's own ego-response.  God forbid anybody approach the subject in an enlightened, scholarly manner.

DragonFlame at 12 May 2006: 09:33

That was a great read. Thanks for posting.
Did anyone else get the impression that the Author is blaming women for men resorting to having sex with Animals? If females wait until getting married until having sex then men must find other sources for sexual relief. I think it may be easier and more acceptable to go down to the local brothel.
Even tho it was a good article.

at 12 May 2006: 14:28

sex with animals! anybody ever jacked off their dog? i need tips. i can't make him cum.

at 12 May 2006: 14:47

  Is it a crime where you are?  Because telling someone how to commit a crime is a crime where I live, so... 

at 12 May 2006: 14:57

I assume you are referring to this: "In the 1940s, Kinsey asked twenty thousand Americans about their sexual behavior, and found that 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females stated that they had, at some time, had a sexual encounter with an animal. Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent. Dekkers suggests that for young male farm hands, animals provided an outlet for sexual desires that could not be satisfied when girls were less willing to have sex before marriage."

That's Midas Dekkers' suggestion, not Peter Singer's, just so we don't get mixed up. And I don't think Dekkers is "blaming" women at all, just trying to account for the 50% rate among rural men (brothels being less common in rural areas). That was in the 1940s, too, and attitudes about sex before marriage have changed a lot since then...

But young rural women can hardly be blamed for the backwards sexual ethics that were/are forced upon them under penalty of being outcast. Blame the people who push bronze age patriarchal sexual rules... Focus on the Family, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, etc.

at 12 May 2006: 16:35


I blame the people who can't control themselves, because ultimately, no matter what society thinks, it's up to the individual to control whatever urges are present, whether it's the urge to steal, rape, murder, or even just say nasty hurtful things.  Although don't get me wrong.  Society can make your choices miserable.  Threats of punishment and such... but in the case of bestiality, people were making a choice between getting their rocks off, and not getting their rocks off... in a warm body.  They could have just masturbated or something, but they chose to have sex with animals.  Society didn't make them have sex with animals.

And just as an anal, pointless point, bronze age values were likely more liberal than modern values.  Victorian values, in contrast, are still lingering strong today.  A for-instance being toplessness in women.  Seriously... is it really immoral?  I mean, will the youth be corrupted by seeing the occasional boob?  I imagine the result would likely be desensitization, not corruption.  Young men would cease to make such a big deal out of breasts, etc etc.

354Report (sage)
vvDOWNvv at 12 May 2006: 18:56

This thread is still moving?

at 12 May 2006: 19:11

>>353 It's funny... Nudity and/or sex acts in public are so despised by the world in general, yet we put people violently killing other people on children's channels. Not to mention that kids are watching more and more adult programming... Children these days are exposed to over 40 violent murders thanks to television before the age of 16...

Yet we arrest and fine women for showing breasts? WTF!

(Not bestiality related, but commenting on the last post...)

356Report (sage)
at 12 May 2006: 20:20

>>354  Yes, it is.  We're trying to get to 400, so thanks for the help.  :)

Gedrean at 13 May 2006: 03:32

You have a good point.  Why is sex wrong when murder isn't?  It wasn't "thou shalt not get it on" it was "Thou shalt not kill."

On that topic, b00b33z!  Hehe.

at 13 May 2006: 04:42

Actually now that I think of it, we're a society full of unwanted people that are obsessed with possessions and ownership.  In order to acquire more things you need to take them from people, and if you don't employ violence they're likely to take them back, and with so many people, we subconsciously don't want any more.  Hatred for sex and glorification of violence... witht he usual twist.  Sex for others is bad, but good for the self, and it's okay for others to die and so forth.  I mean, look at the basis of stability in our culture.  "Do what we say or goons with guns will come to your house and lock you up."  And we're all so accepting of it too.  For the powerless, it's cutting people off in traffic, or getting pissed off at people who don't trim the weeds in their lawn, or have a nicer lawn than you.  For the powerful, it's about making sur ethey stay where they are, and any means of doing so is justified because they basically control everything.

It's all very emo, and very old.  Human life means nothing, so all we have left is our dignity, which most of us waste.  I mean heck, I could start down the correct path right now and trash the gun I have in my garage and spend my extra cash on something good like feeding the hungry or restoring the environment, but I think the gun is cool and I prefer to spend my cash on cigarettes, cider, and movies.  The closest I'll ever come to being moral is pointing out how immoral I am on this fetish site.

at 13 May 2006: 11:54

interesting but good way to look at it. Thread effectively over, but knowing my fellow furries...feel free to keep bitching until the cows have died of old age and been sold to starving Africans as part of a corporate practical joke so they don't appear to be reneging on an offer.

It might sound weird but I think fighting more often would actually help society, way too much pent up aggression since you can get jailed in some places just for using nasty language, much less throwing a punch! Maybe put up padded rooms that function like the basement in Fight Club or somethin'.

Bizzle at 13 May 2006: 13:37

Dude, this got depressing!  Ah well.

It's not so much that we need more fighting just for it's own sake.  What we need is honesty.  I have long felt that, if someone or something inspires righteous indignation in you, it is healthy for you to act on that feeling provided that you approach the situation with a sense of honor. That is a part of being honest with yourself.

Sexual honesty is equally important, and it is something that is significantly lacking in our society.  Yes, your girlfriend would be more attractive if she lost a few pounds.  You do feel an urge to try something different after sleeping with the same woman for years.  You're boyfriend would be better if he had a bigger penis.  It isn't wrong to feel that way when it's the truth.  You only hurt yourself when you try to tell yourself that it isn't.

As for bestiality, yeah it's freaky and just a little disturbing, but it's not like the animals involved are emotionally scarred by it, so have a ball!

1003Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.