fchan

>>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.