MoogleSim#qcgTIuf6mw at 13 May 2006: 18:56
Dude, Bizzle did a >>360 !
at 13 May 2006: 19:04
Bizzle at 13 May 2006: 20:55
Hey, no fair clowning a guy who grew up in the late eighties-early ninties! Besides, I think you mean, "gnarly."
skibum#KrV755.GHU at 13 May 2006: 22:52
>>363 Or "tubular"
Bizzle at 14 May 2006: 11:10
>>364 Or "wicked." You could also add "pissa" to it if you happen to be from New England.
at 14 May 2006: 16:07
Wicked was my second choice, actually, as it was my fav term of affirmation back in the day. I just thought 'radical' was more apropo, my bad.
at 15 May 2006: 02:12
Has this topic officially died now, or what?
at 15 May 2006: 02:22
nope I'm waiting an apropriate amount of time before I post some deeply insightfull thinking regarding all of this and our own imersion within our perceptions of what we think right verses wrong really is and how we will try anything to keep those ideals even in the face of sound reasoning.
those thoughts will come much later.
at 15 May 2006: 05:30
Existentialism? Come on, that's just annoying pomp.
DragonFlame at 15 May 2006: 10:02
Meditation is good for you.
6IOQ^. `!`|`. .^QO666I
66O6OO6OOO` ..... .66QOQOO6O66
.`....`!! ^66IIIIIII|I||||IIIIIII6III66666O6O6O6!``.``^`... .
.^!. .`.`..^!666III|IIIIII6I6II6666I666I6I66I6666666666O6O^` ..``
. ...^6I|I|IIII6IIIII6I6I6I666O66O66O6666666666I6I6I6I66O` `..` ` .
. 6 |.^`O6IIIIIIIII66II66I6666666OOQQO6O6O6O6O6O66O6O66|IIII666^`6`.``.
^.|6I ^!|I|II6I66O66Q6I! `||!!||!!!^!^^.``
at 15 May 2006: 15:49
Yeah, this discussion is just a lot of wasted space now. Are the mods even keeping tabs here anymore, because this thing should probably just be closed, or renamed /b/.
Xenofur at 15 May 2006: 15:52
We don't close threads unless absolutely necessary. :)
at 15 May 2006: 17:59
while, you of course do not need my aproval, :p I do apreciate the more relaxed atmoshpere that is prevailing as of late, you may force me into posting more of my newest art xenofur.
peace out man.
Southpaw at 16 May 2006: 14:31
And now something completely different.
Instead of deciphering your own opinion come to question it. Come to realize that maybe your own opinion and situations really don't matter. No matter what, someone else will try to overcome your ideas because self indulgence is number one, the big cheese. Glorious piles of skank will be written up regardless of what you have to say.
Have no regards and an indifferent opinion. With that no one can possibly bother you and you won't bother them. Easy enough right? ...Too bad alot of people can't think my way.
at 16 May 2006: 16:52
What? Most people think your way. That's why so many horrible things are tolerated in the world. People have no inclination to change anything.
at 16 May 2006: 20:27
Dammit, Anon. got 375 :( *emo*
at 16 May 2006: 23:42
soooo...because people are making out with animals, and not even that many people, one puuuuny form of exploitation...This is what's causing all the violence and moral decay and hatred? What are you, a Fox News pundit?
at 17 May 2006: 00:39
>>375 there is a distinct difference between turning a blind eye to things that are plainly visable to all verses something that is at most times (at least hopefully so) rather private.
critical reasoning man .......
at 17 May 2006: 00:56
Hey, 379. Almost up to that magical 400. Weren't we gonna hit some number some time ago? I dunno......
Svansfall at 17 May 2006: 03:49
Can anyone who are against zoophilia please come up with any logical reasons to counter the points I made in my posts, mainly 199 246 258 and 277.
I would like to see if there are any logical points against it at all, that anyone can find. In short: Why is it wrong to give pleasure to someone who clearly comes up and asks for the stimulation?
A simple question, I would be happy for an answer. :)
at 17 May 2006: 04:01
roll on 400
at 17 May 2006: 04:56
>>380 And the answer is: it's not really wrong. It does, however, gross out a large majority of the human species, can lead to the mutation of STDs (syphilis was a sheep-only disease long ago), and is actually illegal in a lot of places.
There is a Biblical argument against it as well, but unless those people are willing to give up haircuts, seafood, cheeseburgers, equality between the sexes, cotton blend clothes, etc, IMO, it doesn't count.
at 17 May 2006: 08:49
while slightly different there aree many deseases that jump species barriers and have absolutelty nothing to do with zoophilia and or bestiality, swine flue, avian flue, small pox, cow pox, not sure but i think chicken pox - those are pulled from my memorie so the exact milage and acuracy may vary a bit but overall its correct and just shows that there is a multitude of places mutation of deseases happen (std's just happen to be only sexually transmited"
at 17 May 2006: 16:31
Isn't that just a myth? I am 99% certain modern research has showed that STD's cannot be transmitted between other species and humans.
at 17 May 2006: 16:36
hey guys what are you talking about
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 17 May 2006: 20:34
That's a fallacy of composition; assuming the parts are the same as the whole. And something of a False Dilemna. I've heard that one used to "invalidate" the Bible's statutes on homosexuality, too.
I'm not actually back in the argument, or necessarily agree with the Bible, mind you, it just bugs me when I see that used.
at 17 May 2006: 21:35
>>384 Nope, not a myth at all. There's a STD that some dogs have that can be fatal to humans, according to an ACK office holder I've talked to, for instance.
at 17 May 2006: 21:40
>>386 It bugs me when I see anyone's dogma being used to support or deny anything, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. My argument is just as valid as any other argument made from Biblical or religious sources. I didn't include it because I thought it was a strong point, but just as a reason people say it's wrong.
As for assuming the parts are the same as the whole, isn't that whole section in Lev about "God's law?" Doing any one of the things mentioned there is a break of God's law, lest we forget that detail. What makes any one of these laws more or less important is individual perception and convenience of the moment.
Juberu at 17 May 2006: 22:09
I stand chastized.
at 18 May 2006: 00:13
That "someone" is an animal, and you're molesting it. Read back man, these points have been made by like 5 different people. The point isn't whether animals like it, it's whether they can consent sufficiently. Right now, I'm convinced you've trained your cows to let you molest them. But, what I think probably won't make a difference to you regardless of how much I explain myself. You do it because you want to, you think whatever you want is fine, and you won't stop because you don't have to face consequences. You'll go on molesting animals, and I'll go on thinking your sick for doing it, and you'll call my opinion closed-mindedness, and you'll call your opinion logic.
Kupok#BY.QtDIz06 at 18 May 2006: 00:27
True logic is based on facts.
Both your arguments are based on opinion/morality.
...I want a commemorative flash when this thing hits 500.
at 18 May 2006: 03:43
Isn't there a post count limit on certain threads? And as to the post where they said it's impossible for STDs to go inter-species, AIDS was a disease that was carried by monkeys/chimps/apes at first. The most likely reason it was spread, contrary to popular belief, wasn't bestiality. Most likely a hunter gutted one of the animals, spread the blood on his body (for the purposes of hunting colors and masking scent) and went out hunting, then screwed his wife. Sometime later, his wife slept with somebody else... etc.etc.etc. This happens apparently. Who knew?
at 18 May 2006: 05:24
>>391 A commemorative bestiality flash? OK mods, start looking for people to commission! ;)
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 07:58
The animals I take care of has not been trained. And if it is to molest them when I stimulate their genitals, when they clearly enjoy it and come back for more, then isn't all artificial insemination also to molest the animals? In artificial insemination the animals don't even get enjoyment from it, they just get their privates and anus invaded, without care of wheter the animal likes it or not. Congratulations, because by buying dairy products or meat, you are actively supporting molesting of animals by your own definition.
As I mentioned before, I only stimulate the genitals of the individuals who enjoy this kind of stimulation. Those that prefer to get a back-scritch, I give a back-scritch instead. They all enjoy it. Am I molesting them when scritching their backs also?
Pleasure is pleasure, and they enjoy the pleasure. They do not have a stigmatised view of sex as we do, all they know is that they enjoy the stimulation. It seems as if you think it is a bad thing to give pleasure.
Bizzle at 18 May 2006: 08:22
>>384 Most diseases that we know today mutated from animal diseases into a form that infects only humans only in the last several thousand years. Bestiality was one path by with diseases made that chage, but it is far from the only one.
at 18 May 2006: 08:45
prove to me that animals cannot consent in the same manner one can prove that rain is composed of water droplets.
so far im agreeing more and more with the animals can consent crowd. their logic seems better thoughtv out so far.
at 18 May 2006: 09:05
That's a fallacy of argumentation. The one who makes extraordinary claims must provide the extraordinary evidence.
Nobody can prove a negative. That's just like asking, prove to me that god doesn't exist.
What you should be asking from the bestiality party is:
"Prove to me that the animals CAN concent"
at 18 May 2006: 09:15
If you base your opinion on a statement that "nobody can prove that animals can't consent", then you are only fooling yourself.
For example: Apes and chimps can clearly think, and even communicate, as well as dolphins, but can a dog? Or a horse?
SOME animals can pontentially consent, but not necessarily all animals.
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 09:31
If you couldn't communicate with dogs and horses, you couldn't use guide dogs, or go horseback riding.
Svansfall at 18 May 2006: 09:35
So why is it so extremely important that the animal must live up to the official definition of "consent", even when it is clear that the animals are enjoying something, and actively coming back for more?
Why is it suddenly not at all important if the animal lives up to the official definition of "consent" when they pull sleds, or ploughs or carts, or when dogs are helping with police work, or helping blind people.
Why is it not important wheter the animal officially "consents" to being slaughtered, or wheter the animal officially "consents" to having their newborn taken away from them?
But why is it so important that they must officially "consent" when someone stimulates them, and brings them to orgasm?
||This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.|