| 696Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 2 Jun 2006: 21:52
>>694
to listen well you would be able to recognise my broken grammer in the previous posts. this is perhaps at the seat of your disbelief that animals are capable of consent.
Congratulations. For the first time in 600 posts, I have facepalmed. With both hands.
that however did not break my ability to add 2+2 in logical situations.
Aparrently, it *did* impair your ability to refrain from ad hominem.
You have indeed failed at showing inherant wrong by not being able to support well and with logic and data what you are proposing.
I wasn't trying to prove him wrong, just asking him to support his argument.
A relationship between an animal and a human is a non human relationship..... get it? two humans in a relationship is a human relationship.
By the same token, a relationship between two animals is a *non-human* relationship. One involving a human and animal isn't either. It's a human-animal relationship. Also, I think you dropped your petard.
Would someone explain to me why the human associations of "sex" go out the window in a 'relationship' with an animal? It's equivalent (not equal) to saying an adult needs not a child's consent because the child cannot understand sex, therefore it isn't relevant.
|