fchan

Five-Twenty-Five Is Alive!

Has anybody ever considered if the use of rabbit skin condoms is a form of bestiality?

>>526

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!

-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

>>537

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.

>>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.

Also.
-Quote-
What, that you're a self-confessed hypocrite? How is his 'attacking' wrong, but yours is right?
-Quote-
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.

>>521
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.

>>538
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.

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?

>>543
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.

>>547
 Ummm...  Observation and logical extrapolation? 

Oh, wait...  LOL

Your arguing just because you want to, that's so funny!  Haha... 

>>549
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.

>>551

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.

>>550
Um, since nobody said that animals can't feel pleasure, I have no idea who you're responding to.

>>549
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?

>>554

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.

>>553
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.

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!!

>>538
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!

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...)

>>553

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.