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 12 Jun 2006: 01:38


I think you got your definitions backwards there.

at 12 Jun 2006: 02:22

Wait, start all over again?  You mean threads crap out at a kilo?  That's going to kill this thread's momentum, SHhhhhhh!  We can't have that!

Dragonfly at 12 Jun 2006: 09:25

I got one thing to say on this subject all should agree on with me 150%. YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT LOOK AT IT! Thank you for your time now stop bitchin it's that simple. Many dont even think about it. They go *click* Eww this is gross im gonnna go on a rant about it. If you dont click there no rant. But I bet most dont see it as a problem if it was an anthro furry being taken by a feral. But when it's Human on Feral there is a big bitch and piss contest I seem to notice happen.

Xenofur at 12 Jun 2006: 09:36

that was already covered in the first 30 posts and thus the title was changed. reading comprehension is hard, huh?

DragonFlame at 12 Jun 2006: 09:59

Stop your Bitching =>

Xenofur at 12 Jun 2006: 10:04

pointing out a mistake like that is not bitching.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 12 Jun 2006: 16:25


I got one thing to say on this subject all should agree on with me 150%.

Telling people they should agree with you is a sign of an unsupported opinion.


Ah, yes, the old furry Ostrich method. If you don't like it, just ignore it. You don't have any right to complain, even though the original creators had a right to make their work. If only there were some sort of Amendment....

Seriously, it doesn't make sense and never has. One has just as much right to complain as one does to make the offensive material.

at 12 Jun 2006: 21:40


Not to disagree with any of you, but I'm remembering that this thread was about beastiality/zoophilia and morality/ethics.

Let's stay on task, people.

Bizzle at 12 Jun 2006: 22:47

>>807  Harumph!  Well put.

at 12 Jun 2006: 23:31

not if where the offensive material is at is plainly labeled -
on task... why should it be imoral to give pleasure?

at 13 Jun 2006: 02:53

Why keep beating this dead horse? There's much more you can do!


at 13 Jun 2006: 02:53


Copypasta browser

at 13 Jun 2006: 08:42

beat dead horse repeat----
Well quiet truthfully, because no one stepped up with supporting evidence for ""animals are incapable of reason choice and concent. ""

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 13 Jun 2006: 11:43

Yes, we did, and it was ignored. Heck, some of the zoos plainly admitted that animals were not capable of human consent. But, they continued, it was irrelevant, because they were animals. That's more or less where I realized we had deadlocked.

at 13 Jun 2006: 15:11

You stepped up with opinions - try linking to studies saying animals are incapable of choice.
the other side has linked to acredited studies saying animals can chose and show both reason and moralistic choices.
Is it possible that those are simply being ignored as well?

at 13 Jun 2006: 15:14

Perhaps this means that zoos are divided on the subject on consent?  That's interesting.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 13 Jun 2006: 21:23


You stepped up with opinions - try linking to studies saying animals are incapable of choice.

We stepped up with logic. Logic, opinion, evidence, three different things.

Is it possible that those are simply being ignored as well?

This thread is over 800 posts. Find some of those links. The only ones I've seen were about stuides on the inteligence of animals.

at 14 Jun 2006: 02:58


We stepped up with logic. Logic, opinion, evidence, three different things.

Just because you think your opinion seems logical to you, does not make turn your opinion into logic.

at 14 Jun 2006: 03:00


I mistyped that.

Just because you think your opinion seems logical to you, does not turn your opinion into logic.

at 14 Jun 2006: 14:11

from the this is a bad idea people I saw a certain amount of logic
a very large amount of opinion and pretty much no evidence.
I believe this is why the request for links to studies and such have been requested.

at 14 Jun 2006: 19:17

Why does everyone call it "zoo" this or that? It's just bestiality, plain and simple, no matter what, if you screw an animal!

As a biology major, I'm actually offended that people use the scientific zoo (meaning animal, as in zoology) plus philia to describe this act, when a zoophile could just as easily be the "crazy cat lady" up the street or the PETA member down the block...

822Report (sage)
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 14 Jun 2006: 19:36

Which does not make it illogical either.

Please argue with something other than poor rationalizations.
Shorthand, in my case.

at 15 Jun 2006: 13:58


Zoophilia - love of animals

I don't see how it doesn't fit. They're all zoophiles, just with different degrees of mental instability.

at 15 Jun 2006: 19:17


draw a circle. Thats this thread

at 15 Jun 2006: 20:13

or mental stability depending totally on ones opinion and mentality

at 16 Jun 2006: 17:34

stunbled upon this today and it seems fitting regarding how part of this discusion centerd upon morals.

at 16 Jun 2006: 19:31

Firstly, I haven't read the article above yet, so take that for what it's worth.

I was walking in a local park today and as I did so, I pondered the difference between morals and ethics.  To some, the words are synonimous, but I have begun to think differently.

It seem to me that morals tend to be "big picture", "braud stroke" ideas, and absolutes.  Ethics, on the other hand, tend to be more situational and detail oriented.  As an example, let's consider the morality of speeding.  The moral absolute would be that speeding is wrong, but lots of people speed anyway.  In fact, some people probably don't see the morality in it at all.  This is where ethics come into play.  With ethics, you must consider how fast is too fast, when does speeding become so risky that other people's lives must be considered.  Perhaps passengers would be a consideration.  For the sake of argument, it may very well be moral to speed, but what if you have a baby in the car with you?  Would it be unethical to drive in an unsafe manor when a child's life becomes at risk? 

Now, let us apply this thinking to zoophilia.  In a moral consideration, having sex with an animal is either moral or immoral.  If it is immoral, it is immoral in all cases, but if it is moral, then the pracice must be devided into ethical and unethical practices in bestiality.  Many of these ethical considerations include methods used, the extent of sexual contact, the welbeing and healthy of the animal, and the welbeing and health of one's self.  These factors would determin the ethics of zoophilia, rather than its morality.

Morality, as I said, is a very big picture concept to me.  Consequently, we need to abstain from the details of the various matter of zoophilia and focus on what determins the absolutness or abiguity of the issue.

As a rule, nobody can say "because that's what society says".  Anybody who lives by that philosophy is a sheep who just goes with the heard, rather than think for themselves.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 16 Jun 2006: 20:21

Yay for dismissing the opinions of others by the people who hold them! Yay for pretention! Yay for big words!

at 16 Jun 2006: 20:34

you are effectively doing the same thing, juberu

at 16 Jun 2006: 22:05


Pretention is a big word?  I'd better check up on that. [searches dictionary]

"PRETENTION - French law. The claim made to a thing which a party believes himself entitled to demand, but which is not admitted or adjudged to be his."

Yay for big words, indeed!

Juberu, you are starting to sound loopy.

at 16 Jun 2006: 22:07


At least I'm trying to get the conversation going agian with something at least a little different.  What have you done besides be a contrarion yet again?

at 17 Jun 2006: 02:10

The same reason people take paedo (meaning child) and philia and make it paedophilia.  Because that's what it is.

at 17 Jun 2006: 03:07

what I did was post yet another relevant link.
I will endevor to avoid posting fruitlessly further in this thread and attempt to either provide pertinant info or links in any postings past this point.
thoughts by albert on morality should be pertinant especially considering how he is held in awe by so many people.
links to solid things..........

at 17 Jun 2006: 15:47


Hey, I read the link and thought it an interesting tretise on the psycology of morality.  However, it would have been nice if you had written a little more about how Einstine's essay fit with the discussion.  In other words, I wish you had drawn more conclusions.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 17 Jun 2006: 23:38

That's what I was going for.

Care for anything *besides * name-calling and labelling people who disagree with you?

DragonFlame at 18 Jun 2006: 11:20


This thread is dying and I would have loved to see it hit 1000.
I havent given up on this post yet though. I will see it through to the end. Where are you Svansfall and GrapeTang?

Actually I agree with him I just thought it funny that he say "YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT LOOK AT IT! Thank you for your time now stop bitchin it's that simple" this seem exactly like bitching to me. But there's nothing really wrong with that anyway.

Southpaw at 18 Jun 2006: 20:31

This thread has gotten rediculous.

There will always be extremist and those whackadooles that are TRYING just TRYING to get a straight answer or an agreement.

Human beings interacting with animals in sex is as old as time itself. We too are an animal. PERIOD. No rebuttals! You cannot say we AREN'T animals and were some sort of divine creation thats just ludacrisp. Being animals too we are victims of miosis AKA sexual reproduction. When humans began to make languages and  not use body language or small vocal expressions we started to abide ourselves with laws and rules and all that jargen.

Then we made God and felt some things we were doing were wrong.  .. so we made them punishable (if in the public eye!) This beast thing has been going on forever debate and all.

May I clear up that zoophilia and bestiality are different things. A zoophile is someone that loves animals alot. They'll masturbate them and play around with them. But do not submit their own bodies. They usally just get a glance at other animals sexual glands, its pretty easy considering all other animals don't wear clothing! A bestile(for lack of correct term) is someone which takes it a step farther and uses themselves for sexual stimulation.

All creatures programmed with miosis are suppose to have sex. Regardless of species barrier. Humans have to trifle in here with this bogus term "Monogany" which is to only love one person( also human ). Monogany doesn't exist in miosis. It SUPPOSE to jump around.. your horny because thats how you were programmed. There is no way to stop it unless that is you get fixed and become an emotionless drone. This is why I don't like the girlfriend/boyfriend thing. It is FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to love someone. Love is just another bullshit term for feelings you can't think of and as well another term for SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Marriage.. kiss it goodbye!

Humans REVOLVE AROUND SEX. Therefore we must enforce what kind of sex we can have. It should only involve a human of the other gender. Female to Male. Male to Female.

I am attacking ourselves because no one else has. We our the problem to why bestiality/zoophilia have once again been marked as "evil" "sinful" and "unfaithful." Oh like I'll go to hell just to take a glance at a stallions parts. I find sexual anatomy beautiful- as sick as that sounds. I have a bit of love for it. Why did it become as it is? The male cell is a relitively new evolutionary product which why all male mammals still contain nipples. For a moment every creature starts out as a female. Sexual anatomy has puzzled me in why it shapes so differently on every creature.

Anyways. I saw a bumpersticker on an animal control van no less that said "Save lives - spay an neuter." This is a paradox. Your preventing lives because your getting rid of what gives life. What life ARE you saving?

On the topic of sexual stimulation. If it uses sexual reproduction it probally has an orgasm. It probally gets that rush feeling when horny. Most females act the same way when in estrus with the same effects. I've seen animals  masturbate. Dogs for Gods sake LICK themselves! If thats not obvious.. well I rather not dement my intelligence anymore.

The only reason why we control this is because WE CAN. There is no other reason. No logistics. We have the power to say what is right and wrong to ourselves. In this time being. It is in the public eye considered sick.. although I'm sure the people who find it offensive probally get a SPARK of wonder and go search for it on google.

Honestly. Animals are animals. Sex is sex. Both go together and cannot be seperated. So your gonna have people fucking animals and your gonna have people saying thats wrong. Because the people that say it is wrong DON'T have the balls or the wits to go

"you know what..I'm an animal too and I contain the same processes as any other creature. Maybe I should realize that FUCKING with nature and taking control of other animals by severing off there gentials so they won't go randomly screwing around doing what miosis was programmed to do is wrong. We should really re-think what this is because I don't really grasp the concept of it. All I know is what someone told me that is was wrong. Should I really believe it- I choose my own destiny not them. Animals will have sex regardless of what we have to say. They don't care if its another of the same species or us.
We our the only ones to understand our language and sex doesn't speak it just calls. I'll never judge a zoophile/bestile ever again. Although I can say they are kind of foolish for screwing around in the public eye for it is demeaning. He'd be called "oh yeah thats the guy that fucks his dog.""

I can dream can't I?

at 18 Jun 2006: 21:24

*chuckle* resonable thoughts if a touch windy - but you had a lot to say.
I was asked for my conclusions drawn from alberts thoughts on morality. I diden't respond sooner as I chose to let those words digest in my mind for a certain amount of time.
as they perculated down through the fine crevises and i was allowed to savour their taste, the thought became clear that what is said is pretty evident and that it applies here.
the morals, that are not applied soley to ones own actions but that are used a standerd to gauge and or punish others (zoophiles/bestialists/whatnot) included, are nothing more than an individuals need to feel that they are right and they have others that think the same way thereby reinforcing their scence of right.  AKA another example of the "good old boys club" and related things that people tend to do in the name of some divinely given ability or right.

at 18 Jun 2006: 23:30


I was wondering when somebody was going to come up with an amoralist/athiest argument.  There were a few points I'd like to correct, but I'll get to that later.  I'm too tired for this.

Southpaw at 19 Jun 2006: 06:11

>>839 amoralist/atheist? FUCK I don't believe in anything. I could care less about religion and all its wasted time on this planet. Religion causes more wars more famines more destruction of the HUMAN SPECIES then any other and its only an IDEA. Now I can say that there are only two religions which-if I had no choice but to believe would be buddhism or shintoism. But this is not about religion its about "morality of animalism." Brillant, just bloody brillant! (May I add athiest are just as bad as religous crazies)

Don't try to rebuttal my statement. I stand tall on it. The evidence is all around us. It is right under our noses. Using human morality on something that is a natural cycle of sexual reproduction which shouldn't even be offensive- keyword here. Is what my problem is to this debate. Sexual reproduction seems to be more offensive in western cultures and more of a taboo then in others. "The body is unpure and evil of sin--" this has been like this since that jerkoff saint augustine started to blab about it in the 1700's." This was also the era when bestiality was outlawed and considered a crime.. and era were your clothing implied alot of sexual ego.

Morality-whatever you want to call it. It is a human- Keyword. HUMAN thought. There are no such thing as morales outside our barrier. No boundries or borders just the vast wild. Sexual reproduction- a taboo in western culture. Thus when taboo must be regulated throught a strict code.

Finding shame in sexual reproduction because it requires two cells to do so. Now if we put it on another angle. What if we were still asexually reproducing? Would it be taboo and uncalled for if someone started to split in the public eye? Probally would! Even though its an inevitable celluar process.

I personally believe screwing other creatures is alot safer and no worse then going around screwing other humans. You'll not have to worry about STD's, whiners, moaners, yellers, just nice and quiet minus the squishy sound and if you want can still wear a condom.


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.