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
684Report
at 2 Jun 2006: 01:11

>>678

"Dude, your relationship with your cows isn't even in the same ballpark as people's relationship with each other. It's more like a relationship with a pet. If you think they're similar, it's because you're discounting a lot of stuff; stuff that I happen to think is really important. My girlfriend can say "I love you", and I don't need to banter with people about interpreting the body language properly or anything. That's just ONE of the reasons."

For once, I'm going to agree with you.  As a pro-zoo, I can say that the relationship between an animal and a human will never have the same level of depth or quality that can be had with another human.  Animals are just to limited for that kind of intimacy.  At best, animals are companions and friends, nothing more. 

"But dude... they think zoophiles rape animals."

This goes to show how little this debate has acomplished.

"Okay, I'm not gay, but I'm reasonably sure if I was, I wouldn't appreciate that comparison. A homosexual's lover isn't comparable to a cow. Again, you're really reaching here, and it doesn't even make sense anymore."

Again, I must agree.  Zoophilia is more of an accessory to an existing sexual orientation, rather than a sexual orientation unto itself.  Any zoo who thinks they are exclusivly attracted to animals is either ignorant of what they are missing, or 2, is damaged in the head.  I get the feeling that Svansfall has convinced himself that his relationships are far more significant than they really are. 

>>679
But I'm not talking about animals and there lack of ability to make moral judgments.  My ultimate point was that "informed consent" may not even be relivant to animals in the first place.  If it isn't appart of there world, why should we care?

Of course, the reply always is, "But the animal always suffers because you are raping them." 

Okay, then let's define rape.

Forcing somebody (or some thing) to have sex with you against there will.

Okay, I'll agree to that.  So what if the animal doesn't resist?  What if the animal appears to like what I'm doing to them?

And then they say, "It doesn't matter because you never got informed consent."

But informed consent is beyond the ability of animals, right?

"Exactly,"  They would say.  "Which is why sex with animals is always rape."

But I thought rape had to be forced?

"Not in the case of statutory rape."  They would say.  "We are comparing sex with animals to statutory rape.  Sex with minors, in other words."

But that applies to PEOPLE under the age of 18?  Wait a sec, this is turing into a legal argument!  Unfair, unfair!

"No, really."  They would say.  "Animals are a lot like children if you think about it."

Since when did animals have the same status as children?

"Uh..."  They would say.  "Like children, animals are not as smart as adults and they lack wisdom."

Okay, fair enough, but that still doesn't explain how sex with minors mirrors sex with animals.  Sex with minors causes real psycological harm with negative long term effects including behavioral problems, sexual disfuction, and social ineptitude.  What evidence can you give to show me that having sex with an animal will cause them harm?

"Who needs evidence when you have common sense!"  They would say.  "Sex with animals is rape!  That's how I know it is harmful.  That's how I know it is a lot like pedophilia."

Wait just a sec.  That's a circular argument.  You can't do that!

"It's not circular if you think about it."  They would say.

We keep going in circles because we are dealing with circular arguments! 

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