at 22 May 2006: 20:11
Five-Twenty-Four Is No More!
at 22 May 2006: 20:12
Five-Twenty-Five Is Alive!
at 22 May 2006: 20:41
I got to where you told me to pull my head out of my ass, and stopped reading. I hope you didn't have a point in there.
at 22 May 2006: 20:52
Has anybody ever considered if the use of rabbit skin condoms is a form of bestiality?
at 22 May 2006: 20:53
How could you start reading at all if your head was up your ass?
at 22 May 2006: 21:05
It doesn't matter to me if you read it or not; its your loss, not mine. As long as the other people keeping track of this thread read it, I'll be happy because they will see what a fool I make of you, especially when they see the independently verifiable facts I bring to the table, demonstrating to all that you speak from ignorance and, thus, have no credibility.
Oh, and just so you don’t stop reading prematurely again (for your own good), I’m saving the insults for last. You talk out of your ass because your head is up your ass! Go give a hoot and read a fuck’n book!
at 22 May 2006: 22:11
Holy crap, is it really that hard to say "Here's some sources, and here's why they're credible". Seriously, I've read stuff from .edu sites that I found on google that say animals can communicate, and some that say they can't, and some that say nobody knows. In other words, I can find sources that "confirm" it as true, false, and undecided. The experts don't agree! Why the hell does that make me ignorant? O.o
As for not reading once I'm insulted... basically, if you open with an insult, I assume you're saying what you say out of anger, so you're probably just trying to bash me, not convince me. As the cliche goes, I don't like what I see, so instead of reading the whole thing, I scroll past. You're insulting me, okay, fine, you don't like me, and there's probably no way you'd even consider what I have to say, so there's no need to engage. Man, I can't believe I'm being badgered about not getting into a pissing contest with someone.
#YgQRHAJqRA at 22 May 2006: 22:40
straightforward logic says the point is validly locked out
Um, I've noticed that you rarely, if ever, actually show everybody else this logic. You say it's so easy that it doesn't need to be explained, yet it's somehow not obvious to your opponents.
hmn how to put this .. oh yes, so facts are not provabale.
What strange, Bizzaro-world dictionary are you using? A fact, by definition, is something provable.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
>Also Juberu is back and he or she hasnt changed their tactics of trying to twist words and discredit others opinions instead of coming up with his own opinions on the subject. Maybe a little factual proof would work better than attacking people.
I haven't seen him attacking people at all. In fact, I haven't seen him get anything wrong that couldn't be a misunderstanding. He even _apoligized_ for getting something wrong. And you completely ignored that. Am I missing something?
And yes I am attacking Juberu so dont bother pointing that out.
What, that you're a self-confessed hypocrite? How is his 'attacking' wrong, but yours is right?
I was trying to be sympathetic, but I don't understand you at all.
Guan at 22 May 2006: 23:02
Regarding >>1 through >>532 , just for fun, I'd like to see someone eventually provide a brief yet *objective* summary of what we've all learned so far from this entire thread. Yes, that is a dare. Anyone crazy enough to actually try? :D
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 May 2006: 23:31
-Communication means all communication.
-Informed consent is 'legalese'.
-If anyone disagrees with you, just accuse them of 'twisting your words'.
-If cornered, you can use imaginary definitions of words. No one on your side will disagree with you, and you can discredit your opponents.
-It's not hypocrisy if you're using it to point out hypocrisy.
-Being physically horny is an obvious sign of consent. Especially when it's of the being making the advances.
- If you *say* something is obvious, it doesn't need to be explained, and you can ignore any requests for an explaination.
- Nothing is wrong if it doesn't 'harm' anyone/thing.
- Coming back to a debate is morally reprehensible.
- An opinion that disagrees with yours is the same as twisting others words. You do not, ever, have to provide an example of said word-twisting, no matter how many times your opponent asked.
- 'Close-minded' means the same as 'doesn't agree with me'.
/tongue firmly in cheek
at 23 May 2006: 00:33
If you are going to give crap arguments, not show your sources, and post dubious information, of course I'm going to insult you. It's because you’re a frustrating person to argue with, and it isn't because I'm not convincing you or because I'm not persuading you. It's because you come off as ignorant. It’s frustrating because I have to inform you of information before you can even begin to understand what I'm saying or from what perspective I'm coming from. Basically, in order to argue with you, I have to work from the ground up.
As for animal communication, I'd love to read your sources that say they can't communicate. The very notion that animals don't communicate seems ridiculous to me. If they didn't communicate, they wouldn't bark, roar, yelp, etc, or respond to such.
Pack member A gets hurt and yelps. Pack member B hears yelp and goes to pack member A. A makes noise, B hears noise and responds to it. That's communication in a nut shell.
How a PhD could ever disagree with that is beyond me.
at 23 May 2006: 02:47
Basically, they say it's too primitive to be considered communication. Making noise is making noise, communication requires language capability, etc. I'd give you sources, but you're an asshole, so google it youself.
Svansfall at 23 May 2006: 04:22
If mammals wouldn't have been able to communicate, they would have died out long ago. How do you think a pack of wolves hunt together if they don't communicate while hunting? How do you think you can train a dog to be a guide dog for the blind if you cannot communicate with the dog, to teach him/her how to work?
DragonFlame at 23 May 2006: 09:11
>>532 Hello some one who suspiciously writes like Juberu. If you haven’t seen him attacking people then you must be blind or ignorant. Many people have been attacked by his comments and have expressed their dislike of them.
What, that you're a self-confessed hypocrite? How is his 'attacking' wrong, but yours is right?
Congratulations on point out the obvious dip shit. You can think of me as the type of person when punched punches back harder. So this way I am only giving him a taste of his own medicine. I have not attacked anyone else on this board and I have no intention too.
I really am sorry if this is a bit misunderstanding but to me most of his comments have been a direct attack on peoples opinions trying to point out their lack of proof or understanding while at the same time he brings no new facts to the table and very rarely brings any new opinions.
To me it seems that he is just trying to twist words around so that his beliefs are correct. Like I said I am sorry if this isn’t the case but maybe you should consider writing things more friendly.
Hello Unnamed. Thank you for expressing my opinion much better than I could my self. One thing to point out tho, You don’t have to attack and swear all the time, this is a discussion and even tho I believe your opinions have some grounding swearing just takes away your believability.
#YgQRHAJqRA at 23 May 2006: 11:15
Would you guys atleast use the tripcodes? You don't even have to use a name. Just put #whatever in the name box. It's really, really getting confusing.
>I really am sorry if this is a bit misunderstanding but to me most of his comments have been a direct attack on peoples opinions trying to point out their lack of proof or understanding
It's a debate. Isn't he supposed to do that?
>while at the same time he brings no new facts to the table and very rarely brings any new opinions.
...and so? What am I missing?
>Like I said I am sorry if this isn’t the case but maybe you should consider writing things more friendly.
I've heards lots of true things phrased rudely. Like George Carlin. Juber's blunt, sure, and direct, but very rarely outright rude.
Oh well, I hope you two can come to terms.
at 23 May 2006: 13:46
Communication does NOT require language or verbal ability. Having such can make communication able to express abstract concepts and make it more complex/subtle, but it is not required to communicate.
Communication is very simple: Assume two entites A and B, and A wants B to perform effect X. Substitute any verb for "effect", such as "do this", "don't do this", "satisfy whatever instinct", "hear", "understand", etc.
Entity A performs an action while expecting/desiring/instinctively-needing effect X to occur. Such action does not directly contribute to occurrence of effect X but has the property that it is easily observable by entity B.
Entity B observes such action, which causes entity B to do one of two things:
A. make effect X happen.
B. commit an action easily observable by entity A (again, not necessary contributory to effect X) to indicate successful receipt of communication, and then possibly bring about effect X, if entity B can or wants to. (It is possible entity B doesn't want or can't bring about effect X. Nontheless, acknowledgement is still necessary for successful communication)
If effect X doesn't happen or entity A receives no acknowledgement, retry a set number of times.
That's successful communication stripped down to it's most basic form.
The only difference in human communication is that we have the ability to deal with sophisticated abstract symbols; visual, verbal and otherwise. So instead of having to use physical means of communication, we can use words. However, despite our language ability, sometimes it is not enough, or sometimes we don't speak the same language, and we must resort to physical means of communication.
at 23 May 2006: 14:11
You're talking about communication the binary. As in you either can, or you can’t, and if you can, it’s absolute or something. Animals can communicate, but they don’t communicate sufficiently. It isn’t another language, it’s a more primitive thought process with very, very few exceptions. A dog makes noise to communicate it’s dog thoughts... it isn’t thinking human thoughts, so it isn’t communicating human thoughts, so we humans don’t understand it. We TRY to interpret, but that’s it.
So the degree that animals communicate isn’t the same “communicate” that people use in casual conversation, which is a mix of communicate and articulate with the assumption of complex cognitive understanding. Sheesh... why the sudden appeal to binaries anyway
If rape isn't wrong then zoophilia isn't wrong even if it is rape I guess... but... you know... rape is wrong. In all seriousness, I'd actually physically fight someone over that one. My aunt was raped.
Hermie Hedgehog at 23 May 2006: 16:32
Rabbit skin condoms?
Geez, they use rabbits for everything. O_o
No, I don't think that's bestiality. Becuase you aren't screwing the live animal- just using an animal's skin to have sex with. Like, would you consider having sex with a human wile wearing a leather jacket bestiality?
at 23 May 2006: 19:55
at 23 May 2006: 20:14
It goes back to an argument made way earlier around 100 or so, if an animal allows an action to be done to him/her without showing signs of resistance (which is communication, and note that by "showing resistance" i also mean any displays of fear, and not just physical/forceful resistance) we must assume the animal wants it to occur.
so, it's not rape if the animal allows it.
i'm sorry your aunt was raped, but it was probably obvious to her attacker that she didn't want to do whatever, and it sucks we live in a society (i do, anyway) that discourages the carrying of weapons for just these types of situations.
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 23 May 2006: 23:13
we must assume the animal wants it to occur.
Must we? Why?
at 23 May 2006: 23:20
Ummm... Observation and logical extrapolation?
Oh, wait... LOL
Your arguing just because you want to, that's so funny! Haha...
NotaGnome at 24 May 2006: 00:45
Uh, I think what Jeberu saying is that you're making a leap. Just because the animal allows something to happen doesn't mean they consent to it happening. Both the human and the animal would have to actually "want" the same thing for it to be a mutual consensus, and since you can't communicate with an animal to explain that sort of thing, what the human wants, and why, is going to be a mystery to the animal. The best of zoos basically make a guess, and go ahead anyway... at least until an animal translator is invented... and that's assuming that the sounds and motions that animals make are sophisticated enough to translate into an actual language.
So... when you say that we "must" assume that the animal wants it, you're forcing a conclusion that you want to see. The animal might not care, it might not know what's going on and just choose to tolerate, it might "want" it, but for different reasons (actual breeding, in which case the human is fooling the animal). All of these are possibilities that are at least as valid as yours.
I'd say the most likely, given "zoo" material I've seen, is that animals are fooled into thinking that they're breeding. Those that handle animals a lot would know what to do to simulate the feel for the animal, not to mention the enironment to keep them in. Instead of providing a viable mate, the human surrogates themself. With enough time, experience, and training, it seems to me that an animal sex slave is effectively produced. I'd say that's definately morally wrong...
But then, we do a lot of things to animals that are morally wrong. I guess adding to it hardly makes things worse for the animals in the end.
at 24 May 2006: 02:40
Let's see here. I've owned two bitches. One of which got into heat before we got her spayed (oops). Yes, that's right Zoos, I said the magic word, spayed. Anyhow, when a female goes into heat, a male inhales some of the pheromones in the air given off by this female. This causes chemical arousal reactions. The male uses scent and visual cues (female's actions) to determine which female it is that is in heat. The male becomes eager to play as this is a pleasurable action. If it were a completely forced action, based entirely on instinct, with no pleasure behind it, then I dare say that nature itself condones this "rape" of the male, as it is basically forcing the male to have sex with no real gain to itself. If it is based around pleasure, well then it's soemthing that feels good to the male, and if the dog is as simple-minded as we say it is, it will seek out these pleasurable actions. That being said, as males receive no benefit from sex other than the possible pleasure, if there were no pleasure they would not be so voraciously interested in taking on other males for the right to mate. And someone will inevitably respond "But Testosterone-"... is a hormone(sp) linked directly to sexual activity. It is ALSO linked directly to sexual responses, and sexual pleasure. Also, if that weren't enough, dogs in mating patterns experienced heightened endorphin levels in tests. Endorphins, children, are the hormones that equal good feelings.
Now, some males have been notably homosexual in studies. They actually experience no reaction to female pheromonal scents, but when seeing another male acting even the slightest bit like a female will "go for it". Now, there are those who claim this to be a dominance act, but I say nay nay. Dominance humping by a male, nine times out of ten, does NOT involve penetration, and usually doesn't last for the full active period. I've seen a male dominance-hump a female (not in heat) and not even get close to penetrating her, but after a few strokes stopped as the female submitted. Same with a male. Then I've seen a male much less interested in dominance and much more interested in the other male. This has been evidenced by the fact that when presented with that same male the first will engage yet again. We can only further solidify the argument that dogs receive pleasure from sexual encounters by the "leg-humping" actions exhibited by both males and females. If you've ever seen a female hump a leg to get off, it's quite a curious sight, though her behavior makes it painfully obvious what she's doing. There is a huge difference between that and dominance-humping.
On to my next topic, canine consent. I've watched a female in heat literally bite a male's foreleg five times as she was QUITE uninterested in having HIM mate her. He was driven off by the other males, one of which visibly won the right to mate her, and she seemed QUITE pleased with him.
So, to say that any attempt at action, when the canine does not resist or show fear or move away, must still be interpreted as a lack of consent and therefore possible rape IS ABSURD. Keep in mind that canines will most DEFINITELY show a lack of consent if they do not desire an action to occur. There is no "it's just instinct" involved here. Just plain facts.
at 24 May 2006: 03:33
| Just because the animal allows something to happen doesn't mean they consent to it happening.
As >>550 says more or less, yes it does. Lack of dissent is consent. It's fully backed by legal principle. You will lose title to your land if you do not *actively* protect your property.
Toleration is still a form of consent. Entity X tolerates Y, entity X consents to Y.
This is different than an animal submitting and enduring something out of fear, which is NOT toleration. And making an animal submit and endure something whereby it does not resist out of fear IS wrong, and IS rape.
Animals do not think "Well, time for me to breed." They fuck for the same reason we really do, because they get horny. No human on this planet has had sex the number of times they have children.
Constriction of sexual behavior to it's basic utilitarian function (which it is arguable that in our species that sex is just for procreation) is something that came about out of arbitrary religious principles and is not of nature.
at 24 May 2006: 06:14
Lack of dissent is consent? That right there is why zoophiles sound like sexual predators. Lack of dissent is LACK OF DISSENT, not consent. Consent is consent.
Um, since nobody said that animals can't feel pleasure, I have no idea who you're responding to.
Svansfall at 24 May 2006: 08:28
I don't agree with lack of dissent being equal to consent. To me it is highly important that the animals actively show they enjoy it. If they only show they tolerate something, without obvious pleasure, I don't do anything.
Animals has to enjoy things, otherwise it's wrong. You don't use dogs for dogsledding unless the dogs enjoy it, do you? You don't use a horse for horseback riding unless the horse enjoy it, do you?
Seriously, to anyone here who says they feel that it is wrong to give sexual stimulation to animals who show they enjoy it.
To those who feel the reason is that you don't believe the animals can communicate sufficiently, and therefor not show they agree with the action.
Can you tolerate things such as artificial insemination, breeding programs, dogsledding, horseback-riding? Can you tolerate the usage of police dogs, police horses? Can you justify why it is okay to separate dairy cows from their newborn calves?
Seriously, I want someone to answer this, and I want the answer to be clear and logical.
DragonFlame at 24 May 2006: 10:47
So an animal is not smart enough to understand consent but is smart enough to understand that having sex is a form of procreation?
The decision to have sex to have a child make it clear those animals can consent to sex. It is their decision to breed.
So hang on, if a Man and a Female have sex but the Female is sterile then according to what you said the Female is Raping the Man?
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 24 May 2006: 12:01
The amount of misunderstanding going on here is boggling.
Or maybe it's unconcious straw manning. I dunno. Pass the popcorn.
at 24 May 2006: 15:07
Holy shit! Are you serious? Jesus, there's just no way to argue against that kind of shit! Ha ha, priceless. You probably think you have a point there too. Do the zoos a favor and switch sides there buddy.
Okay, some dude who doesn't think no dissent = consent. Here's a shot at the thought for ya from my perspective.
I don't give a shit whether animals are inseminated, broken for riding, herded for butcher, etc. I like eating mean, I think leather looks snazzy, and I like teasing my dog and making him do retarded shit in exchange for 5 cent treats and pettins. I not only think police dogs and such should be used, but I figure they're the expendable ones. Send them into the house first to be shot. No need for a human to die if there's an animal that can do the dying instead. I think animal testing is awesome. Not only is there a lot of medicine out there that saves human lives, but that there are lots of fine luxury type products out there that make life more fun.
Basically, I think the whole world revolves around a "use it" base. Animals are inferior, so we use em, or they'd be the ones using us. Yeah yeah, emotions get involved, but that's cause they've got some value. I broke my TV remote the other day... broke me up inside until I got a new one. Buddy of mine had his car ratched by a falling tree branch, ruined his whole week. Dog dies? Aw man, time to get another one.
Mind you, I don't care if you do the bad touch on your cows. Truth be told, I think it's funny. Dumbass cows. Anything with perma diareha isn't sexy in my book, but I remember the good old days of cow tipping. You'd have thought they'd have learned after a while.
Anyhow, to your point. The reason I "tolerate" cruelty to animals is cause I don't have a problem with it. Fuck em, (literally in some of your cases), they're animals. I've got more important things to worry about than a bunch of walking meat. Guess in a lot of your eyes that makes me a bad person. Y'all seem to like me well enough when I'm installing water pipes though, so whatever. One thing though... jesus dude, your tongue? That's fucking gross. I hope you don't kiss your mother with that mouth, cause that's fucking dirty. This is a man who deals with clogged toilets cringing in disgust!
In short though, animals = property. Go ahead and finger fuck em till they bleed for all I care. In fact, take a picture and send it to 4Chan, they love that kinda shit. Or they love to hate it anyway.
Svansfall at 24 May 2006: 15:20
Well congratulations, because you managed to make me nauseus as well. Everything you wrote was truly disturbing to me. I hope that was the point, and it was all made up. I find it hard to believe that anyone can truly have such a disturbed view of living beings.
Poster of >>550 at 24 May 2006: 15:45
In full view of legal precedent: It only takes ONE time of saying NO... but it also only takes ONE time of saying YES.
I suppose that really means nothing, actually, in relation to this argument. Let's hear it for taking a 300-post discussion/argument and dragging it out to 558!!
at 24 May 2006: 19:51
Nope, fully serious. Take your support where you can get it buddy. I'm saying it's okay for you to do what you want with your animals.
Disturbed view of living beings? Wha ha, that's hilarious! Was it the animal testing part, the I like Meat part, or the People before Animals part? Be thankful for people like me. I'd run into a burning building and haul your ass out and leave the dog to burn, rather than sit there and deliberate. Hell, I could fucking hate your guts and I'd still pull you out first, cause I'm all about the human race, no matter how fucked up we are.
WTF? So your for animal fucking, or against it?
at 24 May 2006: 20:08
Wait just a sec! Your the one trying to prove the point that the existence of animal communication is up for debate not me. It's YOUR responsability to provide citations and credits for your work, not mine. If you were my student, I'd fail you for not providing a bibliography!
In short, I don't have to google for it, and because you don't provide us with citations, you provide no solid basis for your opinion. It isn't my job to prove your point. It's your job to prove your own point, you retard!
at 24 May 2006: 22:39
Uh oh, a tough guy.
Anyhow, for a psychology class I had to read Animal Intelligence: Experimental Studies by Edward Thorndike. Not exactly on topic, but he did a lot of experiments that show differences between learning processes in animals, other animals, and humans. He talks about animals and their limited ability to communicate. Limited... if anyone quotes this line, note the limited part. He isn't saying they can talk, he isn't saying their as smart as rocks... limited.
It's a really boring book though, so I don't recommend the read over something like an internet argument. Just thought I'd point out that doctors (Not M.D.) are still studying it and trying to answer the question, so all of you who are saying they can or can't definately... well, that's just an opinion, and apparently, scientifically baseless, so not a fact either way.
Is limited communication enough? Maybe, maybe not, but out of curiosity, if you think animals are intelligent enough to be a lover, and you own them, doesn't that make you a kind of slave owner?
at 24 May 2006: 23:48
In an effort to reach 600 posts ASAP, everyone who can _actually_ read a book AND understand more than 50% of it, say 'aye'. And anything from the childrens/juvinile section doesn't count.
I'll start: Aye!
(And I'd like to think this thread would be better if we were all PHD's, but I've seen a conference room full of PHD's all bickering like 4 year olds, so I know better...)
at 25 May 2006: 01:52
Manawolf's Essay on Bestiality
Cover Page: http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/Underconst.html
Actual Page: http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/zooessay.htm
I just thought I'd toss this into the mix since we are in need of fresh ideas.
Svansfall at 25 May 2006: 02:05
I am still awaiting an answer, to the question I raised in post 553, from the people who are against zoophilia for the reason they don't believe the animals can communicate sufficiently to show they agree with it or not.
||This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.|