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 20 May 2006: 20:42


"Why are so many bringing up all the old posts from the start of the thread?"  How is this question relevant to the discussion at hand?  If this is how you are going to begin discrediting me, you have little hope of winning.  Seriously, did you come up with this attack all on your own or did your mommy help you?  Step aside and let somebody else more capable of defending your position hold the line while you go bring them hot coffee and donuts.

First, you do not understand the logic because you do not comprehend that sex is genetically programmed into all of our genes through hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary conditioning.  This is a critical part of my argument, so pay attention.

Everything we need to know about sex in order to have sex is already inside our brains by the time we are fully mature.  The rest is a matter of experience and practice. 

Did you even read how I reached my conclusion?  It's all right there in black and white.  I quoted definitions so that I could define, in a clear and concise manor, things like informed consent.  From these definitions I then derived a list of criteria to be met in order to qualify something as "informed consent". 

In most intelligent discussions, you don't attack the conclusion but the logic that was used to reach said conclusion.  I pointed out, for the sake of argument, that animals can meet the criteria for legal informed consent (on the basis that sex is universally understood by all sexual creatures who mature and of sound mind and body).  Did you bother attacking this logic?  If you were smart, you would have attacked me here because my saying that animals have defacto informed consent pulls the rug out from under your "it's rape" argument. 

Are you so unwilling to engage this discussion with an open mind that you ignore the body of what I wrote?  Please don't be so little.

Now, just in case you are still having trouble understanding this, I'll spoon feed it for you.  You define the syntax of a conclusion as:

"[conclusion] is true because of [premise/facts], therefore [logic linking the two]". 

Now, let us go test my original conclusion against your defined criteria for a proper conclusion.

The original quote:
"Animals are capable of informed consent because sex is a very basic part of life, which means that it isn’t difficult to figure out."

The quote dissected via your criteria:
[conclusion]:Animals are capable of informed consent
[premise/facts]: because sex is a very basic part of life,
[logic linking the two]: which means that it isn't difficult [for an animal] to figure out.

To reiterate, because sex is so basic and so easy to understand animals are able to comprehend it enough to have informed consent without the need for sex ed. classes, instruction in the proper use of a condom, signed contracts, or a medical examination to evaluate for mental and physical soundness.

If I have to spell this out for you to this extent, it's obvious to me that you either lack the mental capacity for this discussion or you are so closed minded that you are more concerned with finding evidence and reasoning to prove your point rather than reaching a conclusion based on facts.  Frankly, I think most of the people on your side have use an inverted method of reasoning on this matter.

"And my side maintains that sex with an animal is rape, regardless of how the animal is treated outside of sex. Rape is "treating animals bad"."

You miss the point entirely.  If a zoophile's interest is for the good of the animal, then why would he or she do something that is harmful to the animal?  For that matter, your side has not once talked about how having sex with an animal universally causes harm to that animal?  It looks to me that your side has actively dodged the question "does it cause harm?"  Unlike you, the zoos have actually worked closely with animals, so they actually can speak with some authority on this matter.  When you work with animals closely enough, you can learn enough about them to draw certain conclusions without impressing upon them human motivations and emotions.  Through years of close contact, you learn how to read animals in order to figure out what is going on in there brain.  When an animal comes back for something again and again, it is a clear sign that they like something.  If they avoid something again and again, it is a clear sign that they do not like it.  When a zoophile says that they pleasure there animal because they like it, the anti-zoo side says things like “you obviously trained your animal to do that” or “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them”.  Both responses are pure conjecture, yet they are being used as proof that sex with an animal is rape.  You can’t use conjecture as evidence!

But again, let’s look at both conjectures for the sake of the discussion.  The first one, “You obviously trained your animals to do that” suggest that the writer has enough experience in training animals to perform sexually that he or she is able to profile another writer well enough to reach this conclusion.  This is complete non-sense.  If training be the case, it is the animal that trains and teaches the human what the clues and signs are that say “pleasure me”; it’s not the other way around.  As a matter of fact, the human must use at least some trial and error to figure out what an animal likes best when stimulated.  I don’t think there is a zoophile here who would disagree with this conclusion.  Of course, if you have never experimented with animals (even with a genuine banner of science) you wouldn’t know this, which explains why your side sounds so ignorant to use when you make this conjecture.

The second conjecture, “they don’t resist because there ability to resist humans has been bread out of them.”  Please tell me how this conclusion was reached?  Are there any sources that you can find to back up this claim?  Nobody who works with animals would ever reach this conclusion.  Animals can be quite unpredictable at times and don’t always do as they were told.  Sometimes, believe it or not, domesticated animals will disobey or even attack with or without provocation! 

Instead of explaining why sex with an animal causes universal harm to them all, you couch your argument in legalese by using words like "informed consent" yet you never define what informed consent is and how it is impossible for an animal to have informed consent.  This is another gaping hole in your side's logic that must be patched up.  If you can't, then you force my side to view your side as full of puritanical conditioning and "because we say so" thinking.

I challenge your side to define informed consent using independent sources and then explain how an animal is incapable or capable of meeting the criteria of informed consent.  I've already done this on my side.  It is time for your side to do the same.

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.