fchan

>>480 the pain of eventuall loss and ultimate willingness to face and accept the death of a loved one most often without the aid of a support group is a side that is seldomn touched upon nor seen.

>>482

Thank god someone can tell the difference between a bad thought and a bad action. Very awesome, you understand that someone can only be judged a bad person if they actually DO bad things.

The problem is, there's obviously a difference of opinion of whether or not screwing da pooch is a bad thing.

So, explain why it is bad, without referencing anything involving religion or simple personal tastes or opinions. If something is wrong, there is a good solid simple reason of why it is wrong. So give us the reason why consentual sex between a person and an animal is wrong. Nobody's managed it yet.

Hurts the animal - not physically

They lack the mental capacity to consent on any level - then even animal/animal sex is unconsenting, so how is animal/human worse?

Hurts them mentally - if they have the capacity to be mentally hurt, they have the capacity to give consent.

The other day we were near 400 now we are near 500 keep going.

This thread has been extremly repetative. We have been arguing about consent for so long that its just stupid.

One thing I must say. Having sex with a child is not wrong on the grounds of it hurts the child. It is wrong because when they eventualy grow to an age that they fully understand what has happened they will be affected by the ordeal. If you can agree with this then comparing a child to an animal is just stupid.

I think there would be a better reason for not having sex with an animal than they are stupid or they cant consent. I dont know what it is that is why I am here.

Ok, my first viewing into /dis/ and I have to say the whole lot of you are fucking morons. Of course animals can conscent. If they don't conscent, they BITE with very large and sharp TEETH. Pull your heads out of your asses and figure this out. Good god.

If a bitch (that's a female dog or wolf) turns tail, playbows and hikes her tail to the side for your inspection and doesn't pull away when you touch, that's pretty much conscent right there.

If a dog (that's a male canine or wolf) pops a boner at what ever you're doing, I'd say that's conscent as well; males are horny, not much that needs conscent there.

Stop flogging a dead horse for fucks sake. 487 posts on a stupid subject.

that is called sadobesteonecrophila  k?
the other usefull thought is this... presume that animals cant meet our terms of concent - so bleeding what??, how does that make it wrong? so long as they can meet their own terms of consent that is all that matters. most of these posts have balanced around the angle of is it bad for the animal or not. so this one is leaning in that direction as well. to many people are trying to apply their own ideals of consent that should only be applied to themselves to an animal that has its own means of consent. so in many ways the most basic premise of all this is comparing apples to oarnges.
487 has a damn good point, the twits with the ""but they have been domesticated"" havent spent enough time with 4 leggers .
I notice that has been stated before and none of them stepped up with "yes I have spent time with honest to goodness farm animals and such" so yah, that kinda responds to that comment.  and 489 rolls on'

>>487

Domestic animals a pretty docile, or else and such.  Why bring up a "new and good point" that's already been discussed and disputed.

>>486
I thought you needed an advanced temporal lobe (or whatever it's called) to learn a language.  I know some monkeys have it, which was a big deal for years.  I also heard that dolphins have it, but the people who tell me that are crazy zealots, so I'm waiting on a more reasonable source.

And, you're saying a lot of "I know this" and "in my experience".  Well... in my experience, animals don't talk, and their body language is kinda random.  We'll never reach a consensus on anything as long as we appeal to personal experience.

>>489
If they can't consent and you have sex with them, it's rape.  That's the whole point right?  Rape is, on a technical level, sex.  To us humans though, it's a bad thing, and if you do it, you're a bad person.  Animals don't sweat things like morality (except a few that really haven't been up for discussion), so it isn't an issue for them, but it is for people.

This whole discussion seems to be one group of animals rights advocates saying "Raping animals is bad", and the other advocates saying "It isn't rape".  I'm pretty sure it is rape, because there are situations that don't cause physical and psycological harm that are still rape.  You need to obtain consent, and I'm not sure that what people are calling consent is really consent.  I drive pass the feed lot at a meat packing plant on the way to work.  Those cows don't seem to be worried that they're about to die. Does that mean they're consenting to it, or does that mean they just don't understand what's happening to them?

Since both sides are effectively speaking for the animal, I gotta say that its a safer bet to just not have sex with animals in case they aren't consenting. To do otherwise just seems really selfish at the least.

IN a futile attempt to cut this thing off before it hits the magic 500 posts and causes the net to implode, try this instead. Kill the animal before you have sex with it. Everyone's pretty much okay with killing animals and lots are worried that having sex with the critter might "damage it", so remove any possibility of phsical  or psychological harm to the beastie and snuff it before you get down to the nasty. As a bonus, you get to have a barbeque afterwards.

Make sense? Sound reasonable? It's more reasonable than 99% of the stuff I've read in this thread.

ah killing the animal then having sex with it was a right of passage that my great grandmother spoke of when i was roughly 11
'explains why im kinda odd now doesent it?'

>>495 You're from Jersey? ;)

>>498 Necro means dead. It doesn't mean "dead person."

>>500
Gah, I missed! Fail Get!

MY EMPOROR! I'VE FAILED YOU~~~~!

Who said Animals can't talk?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iV6DQuEh4UQ&search=talking%20cat

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TNVRSO5YOQA&search=talking%20dog

>>502
It's okay, you still have post 1000 to make, and it all likelyhood, we'll make it.

>>496

Wait, so everything I said means nothing because you don't like my example?  That doesn't even make sense.

>>501
Why not just make a thread called 1000+ and post in it a thousand times?  That seems to mean a lot to you guys.

>>506 Nice way of arguing absolutely nothing. You dumbass. So let me get this straight, when a human woman (or man, in this day in age) presents herself (or himself) on all fours, the male dog's cock gets harder than your thick skull, mounts her and and goes to town, that's not concent? ZOMG I want to be raped like that! Again, you're a fucking dumbass.

And who's the idiot who argued that dogs are domestic and docile? Doesn't stop them from sinking their teeth in to you if you hurt them or you do something wrong. I have a scar on my arm from being bit by the nicest, sweetest dog you could *ever* meet, because I accidently pulled his fur in the wrong place when I was younger.

Everyone needs to drop this subject and go stick their dicks in a horse or something; I've been told they've got amazing muscular control and can make it feel better than any nagging, preppy human bitch could even dream of.

STOP FLOGGING THE DEAD HORSE, THE MAGGOTS ARENT HAPPY!

>>491

I wasn't saying anything about "I know this" and "in my experience" in the post you refer to.   I am saying that you can speak with anyone who works together with horses or dogs, as a team, like police with police dogs, horses with horse trainers, etc.  They will inform you that animals do communicate.  Also, ask any animal psychologist.

You say in your experience animals do not talk.  Then I have to ask you how much experience you have with working together with animals?   If you don't have much experience, maybe you haven't figured it out yet.  Learning a language takes a long time.

These are not opinions, they are facts.

>>511

There are a lot of things that well educated scientists never can agree on.   If the definition of a fact is that all scientists agree on it, then very few things we know as 'facts' are real facts in this world.

Most people with animal experience knows that animals are capable of interracting clearly by usage of their body language.  Isn't that good enough?

>>514

I feel that rape is bad.  I must admit it is even revolting to me to hear someone even consider that rape would be anything but bad, even though you clearly point out that your opinion is also that rape is bad.   Doing things for your own sake, against someone else's will is bad by default, in my opinion.   I don't even want to do things if someone tolerates it, or shows indifference to it.   In order for me to feel okay with doing something, they have to actively show they enjoy it.

If I am stroking a cow's genitals, and she does not express either dislike or pleasure, I stop immediately.  They have to lean into me, raise their tail, give any of the other signs that they are truly enjoying it, otherwise I won't do it.  I give the same reaction to indifference as I do to active dislike.

What's the point of giving stimulation if they don't enjoy it?  No point at all.

You'd have to be pretty desperate to go after a COW anyways. Ew. They're stinky and ugly. Go after a horse. A mare has muscles in her vigania that can litterally grab your little cock (lets face it, compared to a stallion, it IS little..) and give it a milking like you've never imagined.

>>512
Well, the pedophile comparison seems to make sense to a lot of people.  Have you actually tried looking at it that way to see if we have a point that we may just not be articulating up to your standards?  I try looking at it from the "animals like it" side, but you can do things to an animal that they like that's bad for them, or at least degrading, so I don't think that's enough for consent.  As for "We do worse to animals".  Well, yeah... are you saying it's okay to do all that stuff then?  Just because there's other wrongs out there that are worse, doesn't make something right.  The last thing that the zoophiles refer to is personal experience, which I don't share.  That's basically like saying "Well, if you look at it MY way, it all makes sense".  Well, yeah, but I'm me.  If you looked at it my way, it's obviously wrong.  We kinda need to discount our personal experiences to meet any sort of consensus, and see if there's enough left over to come up with anything.  If those against are right, zoos are sexual predators, and their personal experiences are tainted as such.  If those for are right, then those against are closed minded and judgemental, so anything we say is tainted as such.  In other words, if I refer to personal experience, you're going to assume It's from a tainted perspective, thus false, and I do the same to you.

As far as I can tell, right now, it's all very confused at best.  There's facts, yes, but everyone's interpretting them differently, and there's nothing that PROVES that either side is right... which means, again, that those against are not having sex with animals, so either way they're doing nothing wrong, and zoos are going ahead anyway, which means they may well be doing something terrible, but refuse to consider that.

>>506

Maybe I'm just thick-headed, but could somebody please explain how zoophilia and pedophilia are analogous?  Please, step-by-step, show me how they parallel one another.  I can understand matching up pedophilia with sexually interacting with a sexually immature animal, but not sexually interacting with a sexually mature adult.

Pedophilia/Statutory Rape
Can a minor have informed consent?   A minor can verbally consent, however, verbal consent by a legal minor is non-binding because one of the requirements of informed consent is that the person giving the consent must be 18 years of age or older.  Some states allow parental consent if a minor over the age of 16 wishes to become married.

Zoophilia
Can an animal have informed consent?  In all fairness, this is a false question because informed consent is a LEGAL term that applies only to humans because the law assumes that all parties in questing are human!  The law requires that, in order for a person to give informed consent, they must be past the age of consent, which is 18 years of age.  Most dogs never even make it past 14, yet they would be considered adults by the age of 2 by most veterinarians!  “Dog years” don’t equal “people years”.

First of all, this debate is about the morality of zoophilia, not its legality, so why are we using legal terms such as “informed consent” in a debate of morality?  The only purpose this question serves is to derail the pro-zoo argument by transplanting this debate from a moral arena to a legal one, but still forcing the pro-zoos to debate under moral arena rules.  It's bate-and-switch, pure and simple.

This should put to rest the entire "informed consent" debate, but I'm sure some will still hold on to it even though the pro-zoos who have read this are now wise to this fallacious tactic.

Pedophilia/Statutory Rape
Can sexual relations with minors cause them harm?  I'm sure that most child psychologists would agree (and common sense would also dictate) that in most all cases adult sexual encounters with legal minors causes the minor to either have immediate or, at the very lease, latent psychological harm.  The only exceptions would be minors who developed sexual maturity early and had relations with a legal adult close to there age (i.e. a 15 or 16 year old with an 18 year old).  The "Golden Rule" applies excellently here, because I'm sure if most adults honestly asked themselves the question, would they have liked it if they were sexually interacted with as a child by an adult?  Most average people thinking back to there own childhoods would probably say "NO!".  I know I certainly would have disliked it if I had been touched improperly as an child, thus, I assume that sexual interactions with children is a form of abuse.  Sexual molestation was, in fact, something I greatly feared as a boy, but by the time I was an adolescent in high school, I was so horny there were even a few teachers that looked good to me!  To bad I didn’t know about Van Halen’s “Hot For Teacher” song.  Oh, what I would have done for sex at the age of 17!

Zoophilia
Can sexual relations with animals cause them harm?  This question is quite open for discussion because you have two angles to consider.  1.) Is it harmful for a sexually immature animal to be interacted with sexually?  I'm sure that most every pro-zoo and anti-zoo would agree that it probably is.  They have not yet psychologically or physically developed into sexual beings yet.  2.) Is it harmful to sexually interact with a sexually mature adult animal?  In order to answer this question, we need to consider the two main types of harm: physical and psychological.  I'm sure that most would argue that as long as the animal is not subject to prolonged or extreme physical stress (i.e. a penis too big for a small vagina) and experiences no pain, then no physical harm should come to them by a physical encounter.  But what about possible psychological harm caused by a sexual interaction?  This is the only real question left up for debate since “informed consent” does not apply to animals, nor has it ever in any moral or legal context.