fchan

discussion

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
841Report
at 19 Jun 2006: 08:47

>>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.”

You sound a lot like many of the atheists I know.  You don’t just fit the definition (somebody who does not believe in God or deities), but you fit the profile of one based on my experiences talking to them.

“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)”

That depends on the level of athisim somebody adopts.  But yes, I will fully admit and even make it a point that the “evangelical atheists” and “science thumpers” are alive and well.  <sarcasm>I just love it when people try to use science and pseudoscience to affect political change.</sarcasm>

”Don't try to rebuttal my statement. I stand tall on it. The evidence is all around us. It is right under our noses.”

I agree with you, for the most part, but there are a few quibbles I have with your statement.

For one, humans do not start out as females.  Indeed, we start out by having a little bit of male and female parts.  Depending on our genetics, either the female stuff dies and the male stuff lives, or the male stuff dies and the female stuff lives.  To say that humans start out as female and only become male because of a “Y” chromosome, is nothing more than feminist bullshit perpetuated since the 1960’s.  It’s yet another example of how science has been distorted to affect political/social change.

“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.”

Well, clothing has always been associated with sexuality.  It’s just that what one culture considers erotic may not be the same as the next.

And it isn’t just the sexuality that is taboo in western culture, but also it’s discussion!  I think that this had lead to a terrible irony for conservative sexual moralists, because some subjects are so taboo to them, they won’t even discuss making laws against something.  I think that is why there are relatively so few laws in the US against bestiality.  People are afraid of even proposing a law!

”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 thought a strict code.”

Amorality – not concerned with or amenable to moral judgments; not caring about good behavior or morals.

Yep, you are an amoralist.

”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? Probably would! Even though its an inevitable celluar process.”

Hypothetical arguments carry little weight with me, but I still don’t disagree with you.

”I personally believe screwing other creatures is a lot 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.”

In most cases, I’ll say that, yes, having sex with an animal carries less risk of inoculating yourself with a pathogenic agent.  However, picking up dogs off the street does carry a lot of risk, because you don’t know if other bestialists have helped themselves to the same animal recently enough to where you could catch what ever it was they had.

But yes, in a zoophilic or beastial relationship, there are no mind games, no complaints (unless you hurt them), no extreme emotions nor hurt feelings.  Only pleasant sensation mutually enjoyed.  It’s on such a basic level.

Squishy sound?  You’ll have to explain that one to me.  I have never associated sex (with a human or an animal)  to be squishy sounding.  Well, there was this one horse video I saw where the mare would queef upon the first two or three major thrusts of the male’s penis into her vagina.

“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?”

The reasoning here, is that by preventing pregnancy, the animal control people will have to kill fewer puppies.  Nobody likes killing puppies, right?  Sorry to be a devil’s advocate for the moment, but I thought it necessary to explain there logic.  Now here’s the deal with our side.  There is an old Jewish philosophy (that predates the Bible) that says, if you kill a man, you kill all of his descendents that he would have had, had you not killed him.  The same goes for castrating somebody.  When you remove a person’s nuts, you destroy the lives of all those who would have been.  Indeed, your paradox is as old as civilization itself!

“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.”

Pleasure and reward, as well as perceived pleasure and reward, are the only reasons people do anything.  Likewise, pain and punishment, as well as perceived pain and punishment, are the only reasons why people avoid certain things.  Humans, because they love to elevate themselves so much, love to go on and one about how we have little to no instincts.  We separate ourselves because we have so very little instinct.  But do we really?  I’d say that the quest for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are instincts that not only drive people, but animals as well (this is basic psychiatry).  In fact, this is probably the frame work for which all instincts are based upon.  This means that the only reason people and animals do anything is because it feels good to them or they think it feels good or has some perceived benefit that makes dealing with negative stimulus (if any) worth it.

In short, the only reason animals fuck is because it feels good to them.  Sure, some of them may only get turned on a few times or only a year, but that’s just because they have a hormonally controlled/influenced breeding cycle affecting there sex drive.  To suggest that animals do not enjoy themselves or don’t have sex for pleasure, but for reproduction only, is a preposterous notion.  Let me give you a human example.  Women have a monthly cycle that greatly affects there sex drive.  Consequently, they want sex more when they are most likely to be fertile.  Does this mean that women only have sex because they want children?  Of course not, to suggest otherwise would be idiotic.  However, I would imagine an intelligent non-human unfamiliar with the human experience, could easily get that impression, but since no such creature is known to exist, there is no way to prove such hyperbole.

Animals have sex because they want it and because it feels good.  It really is that simple.  You don’t need experience pleasuring animals to understand it, but if you do, there is no doubt in your mind that it is true.  Because once an animal learns of your ability to pleasure them, they begin to solicit/demand it (even spayed bitches).

What I’ve found ironic is that spayed bitches are more interested in being fingered than neutered males are in being jerked off.  What else is interesting is how spayed bitches can orgasm, but neutered males can’t (poor guys).  The males, still enjoy the stimulation, though.

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.
Manage