fchan

discussion

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
506Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 21 May 2006: 22:39

>>487

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.

Why would an erection(arousal) be consent for a dog, but not for a human?
>>474
"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?

It's not. I'm just wondering.
In most intelligent discussions, you don't attack the conclusion but the logic that was used to reach said conclusion.

My point was that I couldn't see the logic. I saw "[a] is true, therefore [b]."
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.

Open mindedness refers to *listening* to something, not necessarily agreeing with it.

Also; conclusions are *supposed* to summarize the entire argument.

>"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.

Oh. I misunderstood you. I thought "it it isn't difficult to figure out" referred to the argument itself.

Of course, I still maintain that that means that the act of sex is not hard to figure out. The meaning is something else entirely.

>"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.
That was a summary of what I see of my side's main arguement. Not an arguement itself. No backup. For that argument to be true, animals have to be capable of informed consent, or communicating said consent. That is, largely, what's under dabate.
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? 

I hate to bring up the pedophilia comparison again, but many do think they's actually doing what's right for their victim. People harm others they're trying to help all the time. And people often help those whom they're trying to harm. There is a difference between intent and reality.

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.

No, it suggest that the accuser has experience, or knowledge, about training animals.

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.

Um, you're ad populum-ing again. And ad verecundiam-ing. In fact, since you're asking for sources, what professionals are you quoting?

Wait, I didn't even make this point.
If you can't, then you force my side to view your side as full of puritanical conditioning and "because we say so" thinking.

Because we disagree? Gosh, that's open-minded of you.

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.
Manage