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
at 3 Jun 2006: 01:47


"No, I didn't say they can 'consent' in the human defintion.  I said that they can clearly express in body language how they feel about things.  What they like, what they don't like, when they like something, when they don't like something.  That they can clearly communicate with us, and that we can read their body language and understand when they are saying "yes", or "no."  That they can clearly come up to someone and request something.  This is not the human definition of 'consent' and I feel the human definition of 'consent' is not valid at all here.  What is valid is that the animal gets its meaning across and that it is respected by the human."

Be very carful that you don't fall into any word traps here, because there are different types of consent.  The one that "Juberu#3LrT5NRVks" keeps using is "informed consent".  JuberGoober loves using that form of consent because animals cannot qualify for it.  "Acquiescence" is all you need because common sense tells us that animals will flee what they do not enjoy.

Next time, call it "Juber's definition of consent".

"And your assumptions are correct, I've actually been very upset and disturbed with a lot of the things on beastforum."

I haven't been on that board in a while.  What's going on that you don't like?

"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."

You said your self that "harm" was only secondary to your argument, yet you now make the implication that zoophilia is like stomping on a puppy's head.  The point is that his fetish is "harmless" like a foot fetish or a leather fetish.  If you are going to say that the fellow in question was not justified by his psychotherapist, then you must show me why having sex with an animal brings them harm, an agument that you won't touch.

"1. Are you trying to sound intellectual?"

What's your point?

"2. If they think there's nothing wrong with it, why would they try to "cure" it?"

He was being sarcastic about "curing" himself.  Apparently, you were unable comprehend that zoophilia was an issue he wrestled with for a long time.  His conclusion that there was nothing wrong with it only happend after he worked out this isssue.

Quit being a foolish contrarian!

"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."

Once again, you pick out things that aren't relivant and you run with them.  Bravo!

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

Wait, I thought you had to have more than just consent.  According to you, a zoophile must have "informed consent" in order to not be raping an animal.  But hey, if all you need is generic consent, which includes "acquiescence" under it's umbrella, then I'm okay with that.

"It's central to the discussion."

No it isn't.  It's only central to your argument.  You keep acting like you've discoverd this great thing.  Well I've got news for you.  It's only great to you.  To me, it's irrelivant.  Prove to me why it is and maybe I won't marginalize you so much.

"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."

I don't know if anybody has ever told you this before, but you are a pedantic asshole.


"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."

The reason we have anti-pedophilia laws is because pedophilia causes harm to children.  It doesn't matter if a child can consent or not.  Sex isn't good for them.

Sexualy mature animals are not analogous to sexualy immature children.  Adult animals are developed and ready for sex, just like adult humans.  Children have yet to grow up into there sexualy mature selves.

The morality behind the pedophilia laws is based on "protecting the child [from harm]".  Sexualy mature animals do understand sex as far as there sphere of relivance is conserned.  You are, once again, comparing apples to oranges.

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.