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
601Report
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 12:45

>>609
Hello DragonFlame, thanks for the well worded questions.

To start with, most cows absolutely love to be brushed, scritched, petted.  One almost universally well-known spot most cows love to be scritched over, is over their hips, and down the back of their hindlegs.  It does happen that some cows when I am scritching them there, deliberately move their rear towards me, so that I will touch their privates.

Most people who are caring about their cows will scritch over their hindlegs and hips, because the cows enjoy it.  I am guessing those who are not zoo will move their hand away in case the cow leans their genitals into the scritching.  Me, and other cow-loving zoos will just keep touching them, as long as the cow shows that she is enjoying it.  So, in a lot of cases, it's actually the cow herself making the first move.

Sometimes, I will instead make the first move, and gently move my hand closer to their genitals.  It's like asking a question: "Do you like this right now?"  They show extremely clearly wheter they enjoy the touch or not.  If they enjoy it, they raise their tail up to the side, allowing easier access, sometimes leaning into my touch.   If they don't enjoy it, they lower their tail, and/or step away from me.  It's very clear.  I don't even touch their genitals, just nearby.  And if they show they don't enjoy it, their will is always respected, and I will scritch them in the places they want to be scritched in at the moment.

So, I guess the answer to your question is both:  It just naturally happens, but they also know that if they want sexual stimulation, they can approach me and ask me for it.  They also know that if they want a back-scritch, or fresh water filled up, or some nice food, they can ask me for that also, and they will get what they ask for, nothing else.

Now on to the next part of your post.  I agree that sometimes it is right to force animals to do things they would not want to do, but only in the cases when the end-result is the wellbeing of the animal.  Such as when you have to give them medical treatment they don't want to take, etc.  Things that are for their best.

As for using dogs for dogsledding or horses for horseback riding, I am fine with that, because in most cases, the dogs and the horses find it highly entertaining.  As for using animals for meat.  I find it just as wrong and tasteless to use cows for meat, as most people would find it wrong to use cats, dogs or humans for meat.

I am seriously completely against the usage of cows and other animals for industrial purposes, for the sake of human profit.  We can survive just as well by just eating vegetable matter.  I am not the kind of person to usually speak up about this, though, because I don't like when people are trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong.  So I am not telling you that your beliefs are wrong, but I personally feel it is wrong.

Cows in production are often stressed, no matter how good and caring their farmer is.  And most farmers don't have time to groom every single one of their cows on a regular basis.  If you read in books about animal care, they state that cows should be groomed just as often as a horse.  I don't know how it is in the US, but in the country where I live, it is now very difficult to make a living as a farmer.  You have to constantly produce more and more to survive, and the ones that suffer from that are the animals.

The reason for BSE (Mad Cow Disease) in most Western European countries was because the manufactured feed included protein from bone meal.  Why this was done in the first place, was that they had to boost the amount of milk produced.  Most manufactured feed these days ensure that the cows either produce more milk, or grow faster, just to be more profitable.  I'd never feed any kind of manufactured feed to my cows - it's bad for them, only good for production, and it really messes their metabolism up.  All of those who say cows are stinky...  Yeah, you have probably been close to cows who are part of some kind of production, eventually either to become meat, or to produce milk.  They get stinky from the manufactured feed, and from most kinds of silage.  There's no chance for a cow in production to live a 'normal' cow's life.  Cows who are not stressed, and cows who only eat natural food, they smell great (IMO).

And of course the issue wheter the animal could have physical or mental damage from a sexual encounter is a highly important issue, which is why one must always make sure to see that the animal is enjoying, and is not stressed.  To always treat the animal with respect, and always be very careful with everything you do together with the animal.  The same goes for any kind of interraction with animals, wheter it is sexual or not.

602Report
Benjamin at 27 May 2006: 13:07

Oh for the love of flying monkies people... well.. Actualy I don't love flying monkies or monkies in general. I find them kinda creepy.. But anyway that's not the point. What is the point, who cares? We've done ALOT worse things to animals. We still do, we always will. There's places where they crowd dolphins into small coves and procede to stab them todeath with blunted spears. This kind of thing happens. Always has, always will. We alter our animals anyway we want because we believe we're better than them. We kill millions of animals every hour of every day. We inbreed them to the point of crippling them. We beat them because we find it amusing. We slit their throats while they're still alive... But god help you if you stroke a horse to orgasm. That'll send you on a frieght train straight to hell in the eyes of thousands of people. You know what I think? I think alot of people on BOTH sides need to calm down, review thier lives, remove their biase, and enjoy the ideas of others. Are animals smart enough to consent in the human way? Aside from chimps and dolphins, who are the only other species to mate for pleasure and do seem to have a thing for humans by the way, probly not. But do they enjoy it? Yes, yes they do. Does the dog mind getting fucked? No, probly not. Does the dog ENJOY getting fucked? If done properly, yes, probly does. Will there be idiots who will harm the dog while fucking it and do it again anyway despite the animal's pain and fear? Yes, definately will be. Is it wrong to fuck the animal? Maybe. I think it depends on how its done. Is it unethical? Considering our ethics were built around a God that once had children mauled todeath by grizzly bears for making fun of an old man's bald head.... I'm not sure that's exactly the best example to take and run your life by. So your government says its wrong... Big fat hairy deal. Its still going to happen. Always has, always will. Everyone needs to drink deep from the well of apathy. Zoos or bests, I really don't care which you want to call yourselves, quit giving a shit what the "wholesome and good" people think... usualy while doing everything the preach against themselves in dark little rooms. Wholesome and Goods, get off the backs of the world because frankly, we don't care anymore. Control your own livess as you see fit but STOP trying to do it to others.

603Report
Svansfall at 27 May 2006: 13:32

>>614
The reason for me giving my views and thoughts on the subject is that I remember how I used to feel when I was young and immature, and unsure about myself.  I still encounter younger people now and then, who are new to the Internet, and new to the knowledge that they are not the only person in the world who is emotionally and physically attracted to animals.  Some of these people might be disturbed by their own feelings, and fear that what their innermost feelings are wrong.

It's for those people that I am participating in a discussion such as this one.  So that those people might not look at themselves in disgust because everyone claims that they are 'sick' or 'rapists'.  Of course it is good to question yourself, but some people question themselves too much already, especially sensitive younger people in the age around 18-20 years who have not had the time to come to terms with who they are yet.

604Report
at 27 May 2006: 14:27

>>608

It's wrong because giving them sexual pleasure is "demeaning" and anything that is "demeaning" is harmful.  You know, they used to say the same thing about masterbating yourself.  Some how it was "demeaning". 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how plesureing an animal sexualy is "demeaning" or showing a lack of respect for the creature.  If anything, it shows the creature high reguard.  Look at it this way, a high and mighty human actualy taking the time to give a lowly animal some good feelings for a change (rather than bad), should be showing the animal respect and equality.

Of course, things like respect, equality and "demeaning" are all abstract concepts that animals are probably not able to understand anyway, making any points about pleasureing them moot. 

605Report
at 27 May 2006: 14:39

>>606

And if you eat meat, drink milk or wear leather shoes, your just as bad as a zoophile.  Why?  Because "meat, fur and leather are murder" and "milking them and having sex with them are forms of slavory".  Well, that is by your logic, at least.

Unless your a Vegan, you have no room to critisize zoophiles because you all are guilty of supporting even more vial things than having sex with them or plesureing them.  Go ahead, take a tour of a slaugher house and tell me sex with an animal is more repugnant.

The truth is, most of you to far removed from your food supply to  even consider this argument.  Your brains keep thingking "It's not a cow, it's a hamburger".  You may realize that it really does come from a cow, but until you actualy see a living cow turned into a hamburger and actualy eat that burger, your perspective will always be limited through your lack of experience.

606Report
at 27 May 2006: 14:55

>>614

What I don't understand is what are the "wholesome and good" people doing on Fchan?

607Report(capped) (sage)
Raven at 27 May 2006: 15:17

>>618

Not everything on the site is weird and deviant. We have a clean section, and /f, /s, and /m are mostly harmless. I don't see how it's that surprising to see people who aren't comfortable with everything they see.

608Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 16:45

>>616

Man... I don't have a problem with people doing crap to their animals, I just have a problem with the "I'm noble for doing it" attitude that keeps popping up. If you were THAT concerned about making sure animals would happy, you'd have gone to the animal shelter and bought some animals that were about to be put down instead of buying a computer and coming to a wank site. If you think what you're doing has actually crossed the bounds of being amoral, then you're either lying, or deluding yourself. At best, having sex with animals is harmless and not hurting anything, not an actual virtue.

>>617
WTF? So what, I jay walk and litter, so it's okay for you to vandalize? Jesus dude, that wouldn't even make it okay to jaywalk or litter. Ad hominem much there buddy?

>>609
Something else to worry about though, which has been largely ignored as far as I can see. Brought up, eluded to, but never answered: Can something that doesn't hurt anyone still be morally wrong?

If so, then bestiality could still be wrong, if not, then that's all you need to prove is that you aren't hurting the animal (signifigantly anyway, knock it off you "technically, everything hurts the animal" types).

So... can anyone come up with an example of something that doesn't physically or mentally harm someone or something, that is still wrong to do?  Hypotheticals welcome and all, this is a moral discussion after all.

609Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 17:04

>>620

At best, having sex with animals is harmless and not hurting anything, not an actual virtue.


Oh, and a preemptive explanation on my claims that people are making it sound noble. I'm trying my hand at reading tone here, and when people say "Bringing pleasure to animals" and the like, I'm getting the impression that you guys are trying to not only make yourselves sound better than people who think bestiality is bad, but also trying to make yourselves sound better than people who aren't bringing their animals this pleasure.

>>613
Yes, I eat meat, but seriously, I resent having that compared to having sex with animals for the purposes of building up your character. You want to think it's okay to have sex with animals because I kill and eat them? I don't think anyone needs to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for them.

610Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 27 May 2006: 18:10

>>608
You fail at pseudintellectualism, pretention, the universe, and everything.

>>616

It's wrong because giving them sexual pleasure is "demeaning" and anything that is "demeaning" is harmful.  You know, they used to say the same thing about masterbating yourself.  Some how it was "demeaning".

You speak in the past tense; it's still not accepted as "right" by all, and there are plenty of good arguments on both sides.

Of course, things like respect, equality and "demeaning" are all abstract concepts that animals are probably not able to understand anyway, making any points about pleasureing them moot.

Of course, one could argue that the human carries those human associations of sexual activity into the 'relationship', simply by virtue of being human.

>>623
I think it's wrong that people on your side keep dropping that particular red herring. See >>620 . Also, how do y'all know it brings them pleasure?

611Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 18:34

>>621
Hell, either or. If you can come up with a universal, great... but cultural norm works to a degree too, which I'll explain in a second.

>>623
Get bent! If what I'm doing is the most apocolyptic of evils, it doesn't make what you do right! If I kill babies with fire, and tell you stealing is bad, does that make stealing good, or just less bad than what I do? What I and other meat eaters do has absolutely no impact on the morality of what you do!

"Pleasurable for both"... yeah, you're just like jesus that way. Nothing selfish about what you're doing. (If you're not doing it, bear with the spirit of the post. People who do it = "you", people who don't = "us", visa versa when reversed)

>>621
Yeah, so basically, as far as I can tell, proving it to be sufficiently popular also works, because at best, this becomes a "don't force your views on me" argument, and if that ends up happening, you have a large group of people trying to force their views on a small group of people, and a small group of people trying to force their views on a large group of people, so both sides sorta lose that one to hypocricy.

Note, I'm not addressing everyone with that point. Those of you with the attitude "I make no excuses for what I do, I just want to be left alone", I can deal with that. It's the ones who want a step past tolerance that bug me. You can't reasonable expect people to accept things like this, especially if you're thumbing your nose at them and calling them immoral. There are WAY better ways to approach this than "Well, I may fuck animals, but at least I'm not killing them like YOU: murderer". This isn't a "Morality of animal slaughter" thread, it's a "morality of bestiality" thread.

Just go by the assumption that slaughtering animals is either right, wrong, or morally uncommitted, but is a completely seperate issue from bestiality!

612Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 18:46

>>625
Damn, too vague on the cultural norm/popularity part.

What I mean is, given the rhetoric that we, as a culture, openly claim that our honor is based on. Our concepts of justice, our concepts of rights and how far they go, in theory and in practice, as well as common critiques of the flaws of that system. Can it be justified given the society we opperate in without forcing compliance or reform in other words.

Personal morals don't make a lot of sense to discuss. If personal morals hold too much weight, then Manson was justified in what he did, so yeah, large scale, or again, universal if you think you can do the undoable.

613Report
at 27 May 2006: 19:12

Prepare for an invasion.  A link to this thread was posted on 4chan.

614Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 19:21

God damnit, not again!

615Report(capped)
Xenofur at 27 May 2006: 19:22

already averted, thanks for the note. :)

616Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 27 May 2006: 19:25

Ah, much better.

>>627

Yeah, arguing about personal morals would be like arguing about favorite colors, and arging about universals would be like arguing about... I don't know, the color smeg, or the 600th element or something like that. It might be there, but we have no way of knowing.

617Report(capped)
Xenofur at 27 May 2006: 19:57

@ the guy with the orang tan comment: bravo for sounding like a troll from the beginning of your post, now i accidently nuked your posts. ^^;

618Report
at 27 May 2006: 20:03

If furries believe they are part/all animal, when will it be legal to hunt them?

619Report
at 27 May 2006: 20:05

>>618
only a few freaks believe that, now go back home.

620Report
at 27 May 2006: 23:08

well shoot - that was supposed to be funny and a play on the grape tang nick, I  will avoid doing so again in the future if it was seriously veiwed as a trollish thing to do.
and perfectly understandable with teh timing of the posting of such.
oh and dont worry to much not many of them had umn earth shattering veiwpoints just various thoughtfull bits of umn my mind lint being said to others. *chuckle*
peace out man. I'll just have to come up with some new worthy stuff to add back into the fray.

621Report
Svansfall at 28 May 2006: 01:54

>>609
Hello GrapeTang.

I am not meaning that I am better than people who don't bring their animals this kind of pleasure.  No one should be asked to do things they do not feel comfortable with.  I am not asking anyone to change their personal opinions wheter zoophilia is wrong or not.  What I am asking is that people who are against zoophilia stop telling others that they are wrong for doing it.

In post 608 you say "So what, I jay walk and litter, so it's okay for you to vandalize?"  Am I interpreting you correctly, if I think you're comparing slaughtering and mistreatment of animals to littering, and giving sexual stimulation to animals to vandalism?

So pleasure is wrong...  and cruelty is less wrong?

Back to post 609, you say:  "You want to think it's okay to have sex with animals because I kill and eat them? I don't think anyone needs to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for them."

I am sorry, but I do need to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for me.  Please spell it out for me, so that I can understand what you mean.

Yes, I seriously think it is okay for me to have sex with animals, because I know that the animals enjoy it, and that they are not harmed by it.   It's not okay BECAUSE you kill and eat animals, it is okay DESPITE you killing and eating animals.

But in killing and eating animals you are causing mental stress, physical pain and obvious harm to the animals.   And at the same time you are criticising someone who are doing the exact opposite.

So, in short: The fact that you are causing pain and harm to animals does not justify that I give harmless pleasure to the animals.  BUT: It does lessen your own credibility to critise those who have sex with animals.

There was a guy in the beginning of this thread, Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ.  He is a vegan, and I feel he has full credibility in criticising what I do.  I am sad that he is not participating in this debate right now.  But wheter anyone is criticising me or not, I know that the animals enjoy to spend their time with me, and I know that I am not harming them.  I know that I am not wrong for giving them pleasure.

622Report
at 28 May 2006: 05:15

>>621

I am not meaning that I am better than people who don't bring their animals this kind of pleasure.  No one should be asked to do things they do not feel comfortable with.  I am not asking anyone to change their personal opinions wheter zoophilia is wrong or not.  What I am asking is that people who are against zoophilia stop telling others that they are wrong for doing it.


I don't have a problem with you doing it really, as long as I don't have to accept it. I'm willing to tolerate here. Look the other way. Some people have a bit more of a problem with it though... a lot more usually it seems, and they don't just look the other way, they try to stop you. I feel they're in their rights to do this really, as long as they don't physically attack you or something.

I mean, let's be fair here. They think you're BAD for doing it. If you really want to convince them, you're going to need to try something else, other than what's been done. What's simple to you is beyond them, and what's simple to them is beyond you. Restating the same opinions again and again isn't going to change minds. If your goal isn't to change minds, but instead is to make yourself look sharp to your peers, or anger people you don't like, then the zoophiles here are doing a good job, because as far as I can tell, it's a lot of jeering and taunting done from behind a shield of anonymity and free speech laws. Not you so much... but a lot of your supporters are as annoying as the 4Channers.

In post 608 you say "So what, I jay walk and litter, so it's okay for you to vandalize?"  Am I interpreting you correctly, if I think you're comparing slaughtering and mistreatment of animals to littering, and giving sexual stimulation to animals to vandalism?


So pleasure is wrong...  and cruelty is less wrong?


Okay let me rephrase then. So let's say I break into people's houses and murder them in their sleep. Does that make it okay for you to steal cars? The point is that MY morals don't have anything to do with the morality of what you do. You may not like to hear it from me, but the truth (such as it is) remains the truth, regardless of my own wrong doings.

Think about it this way at least. When you say that someone's words are diminished in value because they eat meat, it would be like someone saying that your words are just a lot of hot air because you rape animals. First of all, you're projecting and attacking, which is uncool if nothing else. Second of all, that's not the point. The point isn't whether eating meat is good, it's whether having sex with animals is wrong or not.  Whenever you link them together as you've been doing, you make it sound like the two are mutually inclusive.

They're not. The wrongness of eating meat is another issue. Maybe you can start a discussion for that.

Back to post 609, you say:  "You want to think it's okay to have sex with animals because I kill and eat them? I don't think anyone needs to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for them."


I am sorry, but I do need to have the flaw in that logic spelled out for me.  Please spell it out for me, so that I can understand what you mean.


Aw come on!  Alright, even though I just said it and all.

Basically, if I eat meat, and it's wrong, then that makes me wrong for eating meat. It hasn't now, nor has it ever had anything to do with you having sex with animals, unless you're having sex with animals BECAUSE I eat meat. In other words, what you're doing is the equivilant of saying "It's okay for me to steal that guy's wallet, cause that other guy over there is assaulting someone".  Both crimes remain crimes regardless of their relative seriousness, because they have NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. (Caps for emphasis, not intensity... damn lack of underline).

Yes, I seriously think it is okay for me to have sex with animals, because I know that the animals enjoy it, and that they are not harmed by it.   It's not okay BECAUSE you kill and eat animals, it is okay DESPITE you killing and eating animals.


Hey! You said you didn't get it!

But in killing and eating animals you are causing mental stress, physical pain and obvious harm to the animals.   And at the same time you are criticising someone who are doing the exact opposite.


You see that... that right there!  That's why I'm here.  Not because I think bestiality is wrong as such, but because THIS is bullshit! You're villifying a LOT of people in order to elevate what you do! You don't want tolerance, you want recognition and praise. What you do to your animals isn't GOOD.  It may not be bad, but it's not good.

Jesus, so I eat meat. Not only are you saying I'm a bad person because I eat meat, but you're using that to justify what you do! That translates to me as you saying "I'm better than you".  You imply again that somehow you're a good person BECAUSE you have sex with animals, and you alienate us meat eaters as murderers.  You want to argue vegetatianism, fine, start a thread for it, but quit trying to use meat eating as an excuse for what you do.

So, in short: The fact that you are causing pain and harm to animals does not justify that I give harmless pleasure to the animals.  BUT: It does lessen your own credibility to critise those who have sex with animals.


No it doesn't. Third time and all... but yeah, that's a logical fallacy.

There was a guy in the beginning of this thread, Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ.  He is a vegan, and I feel he has full credibility in criticising what I do.  I am sad that he is not participating in this debate right now.  But wheter anyone is criticising me or not, I know that the animals enjoy to spend their time with me, and I know that I am not harming them.  I know that I am not wrong for giving them pleasure.


Wait... seriously, just tweak your words a bit and read them aloud to yourself.  Insert, say, a religious theme, or a political theme, whatever.  Maybe you didn't mean it, but it sounds to me like you're saying "I don't care what any of you think; I know I'm right no matter what, and I'm going to keep doing what I do."

Not a good attitude to come to a discussion with. That kind of attitude creates a tendency to ignore or trivialize valid points, which you've complained about enough times that it be lame if you start doing it to.

Anyhow, you like the anonymous guy because he's a vegan or whatever...

So, quoted from him:

Okay, I fully agree that animals are treated in an cruel manner, but in all seriousness, we aren't talking about having sex with animals instead of killing them, we're talking about having sex with them as WELL as killing them, and so forth.  Just because they have the collective plagues of humanity's heartlessness to contend with doesn't mean adding one more is justified by not being as bad as some of them.  That's like saying it's okay to steal because it isn't murder.  Well... sure, murder is worse, but that hardly makes stealing right.  Also, by this reasoning, I have no right to protest is I see someone lighting a bag of puppies on fire because I drive a car which harms the environment, and thus, animals.  Even if that makes sense on a purely mechanical level, you;ll have to forgive me for dropping the idea as utterly impractical.

There you go.  The same thing I've been trying to say from someone "credible".

And...

It's all a matter of relative position.  I'm not saying that bestiality is unnatural, I'm saying it's selfish, and done utterly without regard for the animal's benefit, which, as far as I can tell, is being dictated by the owner of the animal, either because it makes them happy to believe that, or because they're not an evil person as such, and don't want to abuse an animal, yet they don't want to not have sex with the animal, hence, the excuse.  Sex IS natural... so is theft.  Indulging yourself without regard for others is a natural urge, but it's often wrong to give into that.  This may be clear cases, like hitting people for fun or stealing.  Then there are others, like saying mean things about people behind their backs.  Sure, they never find out, never know, and are never "hurt", but that doen't make you morally sound for doing it.  It's still a rotten thing to do.


Same guy, same post. >>158

Actually, have you gone through his posts and answered his points?  Since he's the only thing from the anti zoo side (which includes me now I guess) you respect, maybe it's his posts that you should be reading and not "ours".  He, Juberu, Janglur, and Dragonflame seem to have gone over a lot of the stuff brought up here. He even came up with the hypothetical I asked about in an earlier post... (sorry for not reading everything before posting before. It's a lot to read).

623Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 05:16

>>622

Yeah, that's me.  Damn forgetting to put the name in.

624Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 May 2006: 05:20

>>620

Not really all that complicated dude. I used to hang out with a bunch of people at RWC BBS (Red Wood Castle... though nobody seems to have heard of it... damn obscurity), and we were the Tang club. Orange Tang was the founder, Me, Lime, Cherry, and Apple sorta took the names as a tribute.

Weird thing to post about though.

625Report
at 28 May 2006: 10:48

>>624  aye it was and I know it was :p,  The whole debate here (regarding the morality of zoo) revolves around something simple, and that is that there are some of us who believe x is okay and some who think x is bad.
and oddly enough neither can trully prove we are right. and its also highly doubtfull either side is right, that is just the way things tend to work (leaving out arguing abought details here on purpose) for the most part its only things that do an inherant hurt or denial of happyness / health that can be to any reasonable degree classified as not right. pretty simple huh?
it is ultimatly the responsability of any people who follow the zoo way to make sure they are keeping their animals happy and healthy, and so long as they do so they dont overstep the bounds.

626Report
DragonFlame at 28 May 2006: 10:55

>>601
Hey its me again. Many times I have run into people calling them selves Zoo's but they force their animals or trick them into having sex but in your case you are not. You are one of the few people I have met that dont force animals. And as long as what you have told me is true I have no problem with what you are doing.
One thing to understand tho is that most people will not accept this as normal behaviour and even tho sex is a natural part of life what you are doing is not natural. This doesnt mean I think your bad or evil for doing it, it just means that dont expect people who come from religious and other cultural backgrounds to accept what you are doing.

Back to the eating Meat subject. First off I may be one sided on this subject because I am as far from a Vegan as you can get without becoming unhealthy. You may think me evil but remember that this is exactly what most people think of you. You seem to think that eating meat is wrong and evil while a much larger majority of people think it to be a normal everyday thing.
Eating meat is a natural thing for humans to do. Many animals them selves kill other animals for food. Thinking people evil because they do what comes naturaly to them is not a fair thing to do. After all you think pleasuring your animals is natural to you. I am glad you have come up with a better way to survive than to eat meat but many people can not do what your doing and dont see a problem with what they are doing. I look at it this way. An animal is killed so I and my family can live another day. That is a natural way of life. If I had to kill a person to keep My family alive I would do the same. It does not mean that I enjoy doing it, it is only the natural thing to do.

Try to understand that I am not telling you that you are wrong I am only saying that if you want people to accept what you are doing then you must be willing to accept what they do especially if their opinion is more widely accepted.

>>622
Even tho I dont agree with every single thing you have said you have brought up some really good points.

Im also glad that a few people have remembered some of my earlier posts, it means a lot to me that at least some one belives that I have constructively contributed to this discussion.

627Report
Svansfall at 28 May 2006: 15:37

>>622

I am thankful that you are willing to tolerate and look the other way.  That is all I ask for, of anyone.

My goal is not to anger anyone, and it is not to look like a great person or whatever.  Seriously, my goal is to try and make people to see that even if they may feel it is disgusting, or that it may seem unnatural to them, that it is unfair of them to use unkind words towards people who seriously would never do anything to harm an animal, mentally or physically, and whose only goal is to share pleasure with an animal who enjoys this very thing.

And of course you can compare the treatment of animals with the treatment of animals.  The animals don't care WHY they are being treated with pleasure or pain, they just care about being treated good.  If they are being treated good or bad for the reason of production, or for the reason of someone enjoying to spend time with the animals, it is the exact same question.  So how animals are abused and mistreated for the sake of production is a highly valid point, and easily comparable with how the animals are treated good/bad by someone who enjoys to spend time with the animals.

The cow will only know either that her calf was removed from her, and she doesn't know why, and she is very upset about it.   Or she will know that this same person that she knows treats her well, will spend time with her if she comes up to him to show him what she wants at the time.

I will quote myself in post 601: "I am not the kind of person to usually speak up about this, though, because I don't like when people are trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong.  So I am not telling you that your beliefs are wrong, but I personally feel it is wrong."

So again, I repeat: I, personally, feel that it is wrong to use animals in production, because the animals are mentally and physically harmed from it.  I feel it is wrong, but I am not saying that you are wrong for eating meat.  It is just the same that everyone who feels it is wrong to have sex with animals, they have the right to feel that it is wrong, but I feel they shouldn't tell us that we're wrong.   If I rubbed a magic lamp or whatever, and got one wish, it would be that people all over the world would suddenly treat all living beings with respect.  But it's not going to happen, and I seriously feel it is wrong to try and force my own personal beliefs upon someone.   Why am I posting in this discussion, then, because in it I am clearly expressing my personal beliefs?  Well apart from the reasons I've already mentioned in another post, it is because people tried to force their own personal beliefs of zoophilia being wrong, upon others.

So, as for you eating meat, I am also willing to tolerate and look the other way.  Even though deep down inside, a part of me just wishes I could make everyone treat animals good.

QUOTE: "That's why I'm here.  Not because I think bestiality is wrong as such, but because THIS is bullshit! You're villifying a LOT of people in order to elevate what you do! You don't want tolerance, you want recognition and praise. What you do to your animals isn't GOOD.  It may not be bad, but it's not good."

Few people would dislike recognition and praise, but that's not what I am after here.  If I was looking for that, I would only post in forums where everyone are zoophiles.  But please explain to me, what is NOT good about making someone feel pleasure, while making sure that they don't get any physical or mental harm?

Is there any part of giving harmless pleasure that is not good?

QUOTE: "Not only are you saying I'm a bad person because I eat meat, but you're using that to justify what you do! That translates to me as you saying "I'm better than you"."

Again, I didn't say you were a bad person because you eat meat.  I said I think it is wrong to eat meat, it is not the same as thinking you're a bad person.  And being kind to an animal is still a good thing in my eyes, wheter other people are unkind to animals or not.  It doesn't "justify" being kind to an animal, but it is an important comparison to make.

QUOTE: "You imply again that somehow you're a good person BECAUSE you have sex with animals, and you alienate us meat eaters as murderers."

With all due respect, I am sorry if this offends you, but I honestly feel that it is a good thing to make an animal happy, and I honestly feel that it is a bad thing to cause stress and pain to animals.

As for the points that Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. made, I would have preferred to continue discussing with him.  He chose to disappear from the discussion, and I came into the discussion a bit late, and he only had time to reply to one or two of my posts.  The points made early on in this thread were for the most part extremely bad points that I do not agree with at all, especially from the bestiality side.

The thing is that I agree almost completely with most things Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. says.  He is also all about respect for animals, and that people must make sure to restrain their own desires for the wellbeing of the animals.  There are sadly people who do have sex with animals, without caring about the animals' happiness or wellbeing.  I am completely against that, and that is what he mostly spoke of.   One thing he says that you are quoting is "Indulging yourself without regard for others is a natural urge, but it's often wrong to give into that."   I fully agree with him.

And please do not feel that Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. would be the only one who I respect in this discussion. What I said was: "It does lessen your own credibility to critise those who have sex with animals."

It does not mean that you don't have credibility to criticise me, of course you do.  I said that it LESSENS your credibility, not that it removes your credibility.

I am very happy that you are discussing this with me in a calm and polite manner, despite the fact that you feel that I am calling you wrong, etc.  I am sorry for expressing myself in clumsy ways that could easily be misinterpreted, I am seriously trying my best, sitting here with a dictionary since English is a foreign language to me.

628Report
Svansfall at 28 May 2006: 15:43

>>626
Yes, I've also met people who call themselves Zoophiles, who does not place the wellbeing of the animals before their own personal pleasure.  They're sadly all too common, and what they are doing is no better than any other kind of animal abuse.

Thankfully, I do know a lot of Zoophiles who truly does care about their animals.  There are for example several dogzoos who are deeply emotionally and sexually attached to their female dogs, but where the female dog is not interested in sexual stimulation at all, and those people accepting this, and living in celibacy out of respect for their animal.  For a lot of zoos, the animals' wellbeing are always the highest priority, keeping the zoos from travelling or doing other things they would have otherwise done.  But for us, to feel the happiness of sharing your life together with animals you feel a strong emotional attachment to, is seriously not surpassed by many things.

I am not trying to sound like a really great person for saying this, but we seriously do get pleasure from making sure the animals have a good life.  So, it's selfish in a sense, yeah?  Because we want to feel good, we make sure to give the animals a good life.

And yes, DragonFlame, I understand that you are not telling me that I am wrong, and I am also not feeling that you are wrong.

The fact that I feel that an action is wrong, does not mean that I feel that the person committing the action is wrong, even if the person feels the action to be right, and committing the action repeatedly.

So, I feel that eating meat is wrong.  But I do not feel that you (or GrapeTang) are wrong.

That is just how it works in life: Often, we do have to accept things that we feel are wrong.

629Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 28 May 2006: 18:48

>>627

It does not mean that you don't have credibility to criticise me, of course you do.  I said that it LESSENS your credibility, not that it removes your credibility.

Calling Mr. Hominem, Mr. A.D. Hominem.

Often, we do have to accept things that we feel are wrong.

Tolerate, yes, Accept, never.

630Report
at 29 May 2006: 02:39

Sadly I have to agree that there are horridd people out there that use animals without caring for them.
to address the above thought
if someone lies one time in front of a judge the judge considers the rest of their testamony tainted.
so wouldent it stand to reason that if somones credability is shown less` in one area then the same things that lead them to have reduced credability in one area would also lead them to having reduced credability in all areas ?
for the whole thread....
today at the dog park i watched one dog tell another no in a fairly obvious manner (no not with words). seems pretty simple to me, they can say yes and no providing one actually pays attention.

631Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 29 May 2006: 11:33

so wouldent it stand to reason that if somones credability is shown less` in one area then the same things that lead them to have reduced credability in one area would also lead them to having reduced credability in all areas ?

Nope. I don't know much about sewing, but just ask me about Photoshop's layer modes.

Or did I miss something/

632Report
at 29 May 2006: 15:41

>>Nope. I don't know much about sewing, but just ask me about >>Photoshop's layer modes.
>>Or did I miss something/

 (what follows is something of a generalization but still valid so not aimed at any one individual)


  you also wouldent be stating a opinion on sewing would you?
thereby avoiding that dreadfull little issue of attempting to apply apples to oranges.
 when one steps out and makes a statement upon something that can be shown to be deeply flawed then that raises honest questions abought the rest of their statements - 
    (to simplify that if someone is willing to make a false statement - either lack of research or just plain false then what is to say they bother to take the time or effort to make sure the rest of their statements are in any way correct.)
which is almost totazlly of topic but still valid when we are trying to so narrowly define how we interact in text and such as part of the conversation.

633Report
at 29 May 2006: 20:57

>>608
The idea of getting another dog or cat from the pound to sexualy satisfy your current pet doesn't work because most pounds require those who get the new pets to sign a waver saying that they will spay or neuter.  Often reputable kennels make you do the same.

The fact that you little or jay walk does not legitimize my vandalizm.  It just means that you have no ground to critizise me.  Havne't you ever heard the saying, "People in glass houses shoudln't through stones."?

634Report
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 29 May 2006: 22:32

>>632

(to simplify that if someone is willing to make a false statement - either lack of research or just plain false then what is to say they bother to take the time or effort to make sure the rest of their statements are in any way correct.)

You seem to be confusing a falsehood-something that isn't true-with active deceit. The speaker may, unless informed to the contrary, fully believe they're right. They may have formed their belief based on false statements or information which they did no t know were false.

>>633
Yes, I have, and it's wrong. Condemning the actions of others when you have performed same or worse yourself simply means that you are condemning the actions in yourself. If one says said actions are right, then one is a hypocrite, which does not necessarily invalidate your earlier statement.

It's called an "Ad Hominem", or attacking the arguer(instead of the argument), and it's probably the oldest Logical Fallacy in the book. It's still easily the most popular one.

635Report
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 30 May 2006: 01:18

>>633

What? By that token, since you just used a logical fallacy, you lost your grounds to criticize me because you just screwed up in the discussion. Jesus, it's not hard to figure out if you think about it. My character has no impact on the truth, unless it's some sort of actual investigation about MY character. Unless the discussion is about my character, bringing my character into it is diverting from the issue, impeding the path to the truth, and if nothing else, a dipshit thing to do.

>>627
I don't know what to say to you man. I can't agree with you though. for whatever reason you've decided to mesh the issue of having sex with animals with the issue of eating meat... but maybe I screwed up in reading what you said.

Just so I can get an idea where you're coming from,
You're saying that eating meat is a bad thing to do, and you know I eat meat, but you AREN'T saying I'm a bad person even though I do a bad thing. (???)
You're saying that having sex with animals is a good thing, and that it should be accepted.
You're saying that you want me to tolerate you and people like you.
You're saying you're willing to tolerate me and people like me.
You're saying that because I eat meat, my position and opinion is partially compromised.
You're saying that if I were a Vegan, that my opinion would be more relevant.

...
Am I off base with any of that, cause that's what I get from your post there.

Also, that anonymous guy that you seem to admire. You know he sees you in the same light as any zoophile right? He basically says that all zoophiles are animals rapists. The "vegan" is against you, so at the very least, consider it in that light. At least one person you recognize as being as credible as you says your wrong.

I am very happy that you are discussing this with me in a calm and polite manner, despite the fact that you feel that I am calling you wrong, etc.  I am sorry for expressing myself in clumsy ways that could easily be misinterpreted, I am seriously trying my best, sitting here with a dictionary since English is a foreign language to me.


I'm trying to stay civil, but it's seriously hard. Let's just say I'm not used to having someone who's double clicking his cow look over at me in disgust. You think it's wrong for me to eat meat, and I'm sorry that bothers you, but you seem pretty adamant about that. You don't accept it. You don't think it's okay. It BOTHERS you.

Some people are bothered about you being a zoophile. I think they're well within their rights to express that disgust if they feel like doing so, just as you're within your rights to express your disgust of meat eating. Now, there's a LOT of people who don't like zoophiles, so any zoophile is going to run into a LOT of disgust. Consider it part of the choices made... but don't expect things to change. People are still in the process of accepting homosexuality, in in those cases, it's adult, emancipated humans who are clearly articulating their consent. Your cows will never be able to explain to someone that what you're doing to them is okay. Never. At best, you can demonstrate in front of people, and I promise you that they won't see what you see. They'll see a cow, just sitting there, being jacked by some guy. They won't see consent. They won't see love. For what you want, you'd have to be able to SHOW them that you're right... prove it, if you will, to skeptics.

It's not difficult to convince people already on your side. It's easy to get sympathy from people who already have one foot in the door, or are in the same boat as you. Ordinary people (who do exsist, even in the furry fandom), will maybe accept your opinion on the matter, but not your actions. Even as you choose to sexually engage your cows, some people will choose to intervene, and since they're the ones with that power, they DON'T have to justify themselves to you for doing so. Maybe that's not "fair", but that's sort of too bad. This is the world we live in, and if you want it to change, you have to be willing to do something that's difficult.

You're making this difficult on yourself because you're trying two methods at once. You're trying to seem reasonable (arguing that what you're doing isn't that bad), and you're trying to make us think we're unreasonable (criticizing us for eating meat). You're not going to gain acceptance by doing this. Hell, you're probably going to Lose tolerance for trying to rub our noses in it like that.

Anyway, winding down.

If you want tolerance, then keep a low profile and don't let people find out about what you do. This, as far as I can tell, is what you SAY you want.

If you want acceptence, then you have to be prepared to actually change people's minds. Unsympathetic people. Convincing radicals of your radical ideas brings you no closer to acceptance. Hell, it probably makes it harder, since then you having even MORE to justify. If you want acceptance, you have to justify it. People aren't going to just accept something they don't like because you say so, and skeptical people are going to be hard to convince.  Acceptance is, as far as I can tell, what you actually want.

AND!

All of this is going to be much more difficult if you aren't willing to look at your own actions and accpet the possibility that you might be wrong.  Speaking for myself, when you said you won't change your mind no matter what, half of me just stopped considering what you say seriously and got pissed off instead, because as anyone who's ever been on the shit end of a religious lecture can tell you, it isn't a lot of fun to have some closed minded jackdaw harp on you about what you're doing when they aren't willing to listen.

636Report
at 30 May 2006: 01:41

>>635

Don't you understand?  If you are guilty of an offense, you have neither the moral grounds nor the authority to condemn, accuse or otherwise, for the same or similar offense lest you condemn yourself. 

Get rid of your own imperfections first, then you may condemn the actions of others.

Doesn't the word "hypocrit" mean anything to you people?

Eating meat causes animal stress, psycological harm, physical harm and death.  This is an undeniable fact.

Those who are against zoophilia and bestiality say that having sex with an animal also causes the animal stress as well as psycological and physical harm.

If anybody agrees that eating meat contributes to animal suffering and agrees that zoophilia does as well, you must first give up eating slaughtered animals before you start telling zoophiles they can't fuck fiddo.

Let's turn the litter-bug/vandal analogy around.  Does a litter-bug have the right to tell a vandal he can't litter?  Of course he doesn't; not until he reforms himself.  Otherwise, he may as well be pointing a finger at himself, because both the litterbug and the vandal are making the town ugly.

Logicaly, I cannot see how somebody could aprove of using an animal for food but disaprove of using an animal for sex unless you argue from a cultural norms standpoint vs. a philosophical standpoint.

637Report
at 30 May 2006: 06:27

>>636

I'm an arsonist. Don't light things on fire folks, cause that would be bad.

In all seriousness, none of what you said makes any sense. It doesn't matter if you're also accusing yourself, and it doesn't matter if you're a hypocrit, if it's wrong, it's still wrong whether or not the person doing it is credible, and if it's right, it's still right whether or not the person's credible.

The way you've constructed this means that if a vandal says that vandalism is wrong, then he's wrong, where as if someone who isn't a vandal says vandalism is wrong, he's right. That literally makes NO sense. It's practically a non sequitur.

638Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 07:31

>>635

QUOTE: "for whatever reason you've decided to mesh the issue of having sex with animals with the issue of eating meat..."

Yes, because the issue is how we treat animals.  As I said before: The animal does not care about the reason for the way they are being treated, they care about being treated good, and to not have harm caused to them.   Wheter the person who treats them good/bad views them as productive income, or wheter the person who treats them good/bad views them as beautiful individuals to spend time together with.

(WARNING: the next two paragraphs include disturbing descriptions, that those of you who are vegetarian or vegans may wish to not read.)

If the animal is a cow in a dairy, she will have her calf taken away from her at a young age, and this is mentally harmful to the cow, as well as to the calf.  If the animal is to become meat, it will be sent on a stressful trip mashed together with other animals on their way to the slaughter house.  Often, there are cows who don't know each other being pressed tightly together, which is highly stressful in itself.  The trips may take endless hours because often they don't ship them to the closest slaughterhouse.  Many animals are often dead when they reach the slaughterhouse, because of the stresslevel getting too high and so they die painfully of heartfailure.  Having other cows die around them does not lessen the stress for the other animals still alive in the lorry.

If you've visited a slaughterhouse, seen what's going on there, and talked to some of the people who work there, you know that most often the routines aren't as 'clean' in reality as they are made out to be on legal papers.  The fact that they have to be productive and slaughter as many animals as possible in as short time as possible, makes sure that they're often being sloppy with the anaesthesia.  Most often the animals are fully conscious and fully aware of the physical pain and the mental agony as their throats are slit open.

Okay, I am sorry for those horrible descriptions, but since maybe not all of you have visited slaughterhouses in person, I had to describe some of what is actually going on.

The point is that using animals in production is harmful to the animals, mentally, as well as physically.   Sex with animals can also be harmful to the animals, mentally and physically.  The act of having sex with animals without care of the animal's wellbeing is just as bad as actively supporting the meat industry by eating meat, IMHO.

QUOTE: "You're saying that eating meat is a bad thing to do, and you know I eat meat, but you AREN'T saying I'm a bad person even though I do a bad thing. (???)"

Correct.  Most people I know IRL eat meat, and most of them are really good people.  The fact that they have chosen not to sit down to contemplate what's going on in the slaughterhouses, and drawn the connection between this and what's on their plate, does not necessarily make them bad people.  Good people can do bad deeds, and does do bad deeds.  I am doing bad deeds also, but I still consider myself at least a fairly good person, although not as good person as some other people I know.   From your sensible manner of discussion, it seems to me that you're a good person also.

QUOTE: "You're saying that having sex with animals is a good thing, and that it should be accepted."

I believe that sex with animals is wrong if the animals' wellbeing isn't highest priority for the person engaging in sex with the animal.  I believe that sex with animals is wrong if the animal is physically or mentally hurt, if the animal gets stressed or uncomfortable by the act.   This should not be accepted.

I believe that sex with animals is good in the cases when the animal is actively enjoying it, when the animal is desiring the sexual stimulation, and when the animal does not suffer physically or mentally from the experience.  I feel that this should be accepted.

QUOTE: "You're saying that you want me to tolerate you and people like you.
You're saying you're willing to tolerate me and people like me."

Correct.

QUOTE: "You're saying that because I eat meat, my position and opinion is partially compromised.
You're saying that if I were a Vegan, that my opinion would be more relevant."

I know I expressed myself clumsily in this matter.  Your opinion is relevant in itself, but I just don't fully understand where you are coming from.  I find it very strange how someone who is actively supporting harmful acts to animals (by supporting meat industry), can disapprove of acts to animals, which are harmless and gives pleasure to the animals.  I do not fully understand the logic between this connection.

QUOTE: "Also, that anonymous guy that you seem to admire. You know he sees you in the same light as any zoophile right? He basically says that all zoophiles are animals rapists. The "vegan" is against you, so at the very least, consider it in that light. At least one person you recognize as being as credible as you says your wrong."

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. showed a willingness, to take in information and carefully consider it, that I admire.  He was met with arguments from people who completely disregarded his own valid points, and he still tried patiently to discuss with those people.

I am also against some people who are bestialists, or who call themselves zoophiles.  I feel it is wrong to engage in sex with animals without treating the animal with respect.  It is up to Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. what he believes.  He has the right to believe anything he wishes.  Even if he does believe that I am an animal rapist, I know that I am not, and I still value him as being a good individual on this planet, because he cares for the wellbeing of animals.  I believe that if he knew me IRL, he would not consider me an animal rapist.  Maybe I believe wrong, but that is still what I believe.

639Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 07:32

>>635
(Had to split my reply up, it was too large.)

QUOTE:  "I'm trying to stay civil, but it's seriously hard. Let's just say I'm not used to having someone who's double clicking his cow look over at me in disgust. You think it's wrong for me to eat meat, and I'm sorry that bothers you, but you seem pretty adamant about that. You don't accept it. You don't think it's okay. It BOTHERS you."

Yes, you're fully correct that it bothers me a lot, more than a lot.  But I am hoping I managed to explain properly above that it is the act that I am against, not the people committing the act.  If people couldn't get along with people who had different views, then nobody could get along in this world.  I don't think many people have ever met someone who agreed 100% upon everything.

QUOTE:  "Some people are bothered about you being a zoophile. I think they're well within their rights to express that disgust if they feel like doing so, just as you're within your rights to express your disgust of meat eating. Now, there's a LOT of people who don't like zoophiles, so any zoophile is going to run into a LOT of disgust."

Yes, we have freedom of speech, and everyone are entitled to say what they feel like.  But with every right comes the need for using the right responsibly.  I would prefer if people used this freedom of speech a little sensibly, with care about other people's feelings.  I seriously usually shut up completely about my feelings of meat-eating, because I feel it is unnecessary for me to make people uncomfortable.

Yes, I did bring it up right here, right now, in this discussion, but it is because I feel it is an essential valid and necessary point to make in this discussion.  I don't go and rub my zoophilia in the faces of people around me either, unless asked about it.

To me, it is no longer-lasting harm if someone tells me I am disgusting or an animal rapist. I feel sad for a moment, and I feel that it is not right for them to call me that, but it doesn't creep into my mind to make me bothered for any longer periods of times.  But as I say in post 603, some young people who are zoophiles are already sensitive and I believe if they get too much hostility and intolerance showed towards them, that it can lead to long-lasting depressions or possibly harm that might last the rest of their lives.

Again, there are acts that are disgusting, but that does not make the people who commit the acts disgusting.  So, because I am disgusted with the thought of people going to the toilet, should I be disgusted with them for that?    And because someone is disgusted by me giving pleasure to my cows, should you be disgusted with me for that?

I fully and wholly understand that the very thought is revolting to people who are not sexually attracted to animals.  I am disgusted by every single sexual act that does not turn me on, actively repulsed.  But as long as no one is harmed, I do not care what others are turned on by.  It does not make them disgusting in my eyes, even if the act itself may be disgusting.  It's when someone is coming to harm by the sexual act that I feel it is wrong, no matter what sexual act it is.

So, I completely understand, respect, and accept that people are disgusted by what I do.  But I still feel people should choose their words carefully and sensibly, and not verbally assault people who may or may not be sensitive to the insults.

QUOTE: "All of this is going to be much more difficult if you aren't willing to look at your own actions and accpet the possibility that you might be wrong.  Speaking for myself, when you said you won't change your mind no matter what, half of me just stopped considering what you say seriously and got pissed off instead, because as anyone who's ever been on the shit end of a religious lecture can tell you, it isn't a lot of fun to have some closed minded jackdaw harp on you about what you're doing when they aren't willing to listen."

When I was a teenager and became sexually mature, I realized that I was attracted to animals.  Of course this made me think and carefully consider things, especially topics of what is right and what is wrong.  I took courses in Philosophy and Psychology, just to read up on general things that could be helpful in my own striving to find out what is right and what is wrong.  I hade friends who were interested in the same subjects, and we would have long discussions of what was ethical and not.

When I grew older, I "came out of the closest" to several close friends.  Three of them tolerated it, the rest of them (about ten or so) accepted it, and most of them were intrested and wanted to discuss it with me.  But in 1996 I found other people who were also zoophiles on the Internet, before that I had thought I was the only one in the world who were emotionally and physically attracted to animals.  I was aware of animal porn existing, so I knew that people thought it to be arousing as a kink, but I seriously thought I was the only one in the world who felt the way I do.

So after 1996 I didn't come out to more people around me, but instead made RL friends who were also zoophiles.  The fact that some people who claim to be zoophiles still treat their animals without respect gives us reasons to discuss and ponder what is right and what is wrong on a regular basis even now, even after having long since come to terms with our sexuality and emotions for animals.

Actually, just a few days ago, when I was visiting one of my zoophile friends, I showed him some of this discussion here on Fchan, and as result, him and me sat and spontaneously discussed morality of bestiality for a few hours.

So, believe me, I have looked at my actions, more than carefully, I have extensively considered wheter what I am doing is right or wrong.  I have considered the possibility that what I am doing might be wrong.  It has taken more than half of my life, but I have seriously thought about all of it, and I have reached the conclusion that I am not wrong.  What more can you ask of me?  I think about it every day, and when you ask me the question if I believe I am wrong or not, and I answer that I know that I am right, because I know I have carefully and slowly thought about it for so long. I am sorry if that isn't enough.

I see that the animals are happy, I see that they enjoy what I do, I see that no one is coming to harm.  I reach the conclusion that it is right for me to make them happy.  I carefully consider most things I do in everyday life, and I do things that I realize are not good, so I am actively trying to change those things.  But since I consider what I am doing with the animals on a regular basis, and reach the conclusion that it is not wrong, why should I change it?  I'll change it if I realize it is bad of me to do it.  But so far I know I am right.

When I was a teenager, I did a lot of general things that I would condemn now.  Why don't I do those things now?  Because I have carefully considered everything I do, and trying to change what I feel I am doing wrong.  You are right that one should never stop to think about ones own actions and beliefs.  Everyone should question their own actions and opinions on a regular basis.

Are you still upset at me when I say that I know it is right for me to make the animals happy?

640Report
Svansfall at 30 May 2006: 07:51

Oh, and since this point in post 627 has been overlooked, can someone answer it to me?

But please explain to me, what is NOT good about making someone feel pleasure, while making sure that they don't get any physical or mental harm?

Is there any part of giving harmless pleasure that is not good?

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