fchan

  My intent was not to make you facepalm. my apologies for that
Simply understand that just because a person doesent seem capable dont presume that they are not by default.
  Also my apologies for misinterpreting your ongoing debate with one person for the overall debate that is happening.
unless ive overlooked details ive seen the zoo side post
much info with data and pics to back up: gay animals, animal intellect, animal choice, and animals having sex simply for pleasure. now with that said im "asking" *you* to provide links and data saying just the oposite (to support your seeming claim that animals are incapable of many things.(which is a large part of what this all hinges around) aka show me something to back up  your assertation.
 We are both guilty of ad hominum.
oh... congrats on having me look up a word (The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city.) courtsy of dictionary.com
  I do hope I've avoided large disharges of intestonal gas but then we both may be guilty of that as well.
""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.**
 
  Precisily  my point, its a human animal relationship not a human human relationship therefore it cant be judged by the same qaulifiers. so consent in a human animal relationship can be obtained in other ways than the "yes dear you can bone me" way.
  you thereby gave an example of why the rules become different.
**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.**
  I recognise and accept that you qualified that
with not equal.
  Not quite equivalant either - the difference is that an animal is sexually mature and ready for sex, while a child is most assuradly not. that has also been discused at various lengths before and roughly the same reply was stated (what was that abought going on and on?)
the comparison between zoophiles and pedophiles has been used enough in the past that the logical differences tween the two have been seriously thought through both by zoophiles themselves and by the previously mentioned "profesional" white happy jacket guys.


  Is it possible to leap beyond the small banalities and discusion of inanely trival points that have been relativly well charted so far?  or should we continue to spar with details of how we word things?
dammit lotsa text for a simpole idea.
*peace out people.*
may the road not give you big hairy blisters of doom.