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
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 20 Jun 2006: 09:24


juberu has there ever been any real debate?

Yes. It ended somewhere in the 700s or 600s when both sides agreed that their arguments were irreconcilable.
while you may be convinced of whatever it is that you are convinced of, just what was it that you actually are convinced of again?

That bestiality is wrong because it is rape. See below for more detail, or >>712 and >>713 .

The term for that (which is a double standard) is called interspecies. Which is totally bogus because that what beasty is. It is interspecies too. So if a human is involved remember its bad. But if another animal is doing it, don't worry they're just animals- mindless, dumb animals.

That's their point. The animal allegedly cannot, and never will, understand the human concept of "consent", and  cannot give it-to a human, making sex with an animal rape. The zoos in this thread claimed that acquiring the animal's consent was irrelevant precisely because it could not understand consent. That's pretty much where the actual debate ended.

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.