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
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 17:28

>that is solely your opinion based upon your understanding of consent, as soon as one is dealing with a being tha has a different udnerstanding of consent then the definition of consent changes
Hold everything. Why does it change *toward the animal*? What if it's two humans with different cultural ideas of 'consent'? What then?

as their is point somewhere between teh animals understanding of consent and our understanding of consent that becomes what consent is defined as in such a relationship.

All I've heard is based on the *animal's* probable definition of consent. The human side is generally dismissed, because it 'doesn't apply in a non-human relationship'. Which is technically correct, in relationships between non-humans.

"your fine and this falls under the same heading as a fetish or sexual orientation"

Which has what to do with making it 'right''? Some people have a fetish for stomping small animals to death, others have a fetish for certain types of soda pop.
and no it dident """cure""" me.

1. Are you trying to sound intellectual?
2. If they think there's nothing wrong with it, why would they try to "cure" it?

and how does that make it inherantly wrong?... You have failed so far` at showing inherant wrongness try again.

1. I think I've done a bang-up job. You don't. Clearly, you are obviously right.
2. He's failed at showing inherent "rightness". Try again.

  Picking at what ive said doesent win points, illistrate with clairity why its inherantly wrong wiothout relying on the tired argument of they cant consent.

I'm not trying to "win points", I'm trying to argue my position. And I don't recall seeing you in the debate before; I would've remembered your quote and phrasing style, as well as the lack of proper grammar and spelling.

Oh, and the "tired" argument of lack of consent? Consent-or lack thereof-is what defines a sexual act as rape. It's central to the discussion.

quit being so sodden narrow minded.

That's "sodding", and I'm not being "narrow-minded", I simply don't agree. Narrow minded would be not listening to your opponent. I've been listening, and I still find their position flawed.


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.