| 881Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 21 Jun 2006: 23:10
>>871
Language is NOT the only form of communication.
Where does this keep coming from? We're claiming that the animal cannot understand, nor express consent. We didn't say anything about "language".
All parts of our society that rely on this idea of "consent" do not expect the initiating party to conduct a full-blown scientific study on whether the targeted party is able to consent or not.
Do you know what a straw man is? It's when one side in a debate distorts their opponent's argument into an easily defeatable form, usually by exagerrating[sp] a non-essential part of it. One then "defeats" the almost-entirely imaginary argument, and declares victory. Any claims your opponent makes of deliberate misrepresentation can be covered up by blaming their poor typing skills.
In this case, you're ignoring a basic set of language skills which most adults in several languages have for conveying consent, or lack thereof.
The initiating party is expected to pay attention to easily observable signals of the targeted party and read a "I consent" or "I do not consent" from that. I think it's dangerous to take away an entities' right expressing no-consent non-verbally because such entity lacks capacity of language.
No, it's largely about intelligence to understand consent, at least by human definition. If the animal cannot understand or give consent, then one must assume there is none. It may not be true, but until you can find conclusive evidence to the contrary, it's safer.
Basically, one side says animal can consent in there own way and that this low level consent can and should be obtained, while the other side says animal consent is unimportant because of the superiority of Man.
I've seen none of the latter here. Incidentally, I think it's because of the alleged "superiority" that we need consent. Our "consent" is much more complex than theirs. Why should ours go out the window? All the times I've asked this, I've gotten "because the animal can't understand it" back, or nothing at all. My response; that's exactly my bleeping point.
|
| 882Report |
Sylern at 21 Jun 2006: 23:28
I really hate to get into this but...
Sometimes I wonder if some of you actually understand animals at all. Some animals do pretty much require rape (There are species that only reproduce by raping the female). However more than enough species DO operate on concent, that concent just isn't verbal.
Here's one for ya...the bat. The male, in order to mate, just comes up and tries to stick it in. Yaknow what the female does if she dosn't want it? She nips the bat right then and there.
To an animal its simple. If they are in heat, if they are willing, they will do it. If they don't want to..they will struggle and might even take swipes at you.
The sad part is..with the way some of you struggle. If a guy is tied to the floor..gagged and bound so he couldn't move...then an animal takes advantage of his rear since its so open. Then with the definition many of you are using..the man would have raped the animal..since the animal didn't concent to it being done.
Animals can and do concent..they just don't vocalize it in the way humans do. And usually 'no' is _very_ easy to tell.
|
| 883Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 00:06
>>881 ---I've seen none of the latter here. Incidentally, I think it's because of the alleged "superiority" that we need consent. Our "consent" is much more complex than theirs. Why should ours go out the window? All the times I've asked this, I've gotten "because the animal can't understand it" back, or nothing at all. My response; that's exactly my bleeping point.---
I myself never suggested yours should go out the window you assumed I did. I did however suggest and now outright say I have no respect for your understanding of consent. and thereby I will follow a standerd that is not yours.
Now please quit trying to bloody well impose your standerds on others who have a totally different understanding of how things work.
|
| 884Report |
<font color=green>Devy at 22 Jun 2006: 00:12
:O
|
| 885Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 01:54
>>881
Because the only reason people say an animal cannot give consent it seems is because the animal cannot physically speak the word "no." There are those in this thread that cannot understand that other signs, such as growling/backing away/angry stares/biting/etc. can also be a sign that says "I do not give consent"
| No, it's largely about intelligence to understand consent, at least by human definition. If the animal cannot understand or give consent, then one must assume there is none. It may not be true, but until you can find conclusive evidence to the contrary, it's safer.
HOW do you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that an animal cannot understand consent? IF an animal can show signs of resistance or other non-language based means of saying "no" (WHICH THEY DO, as just described), then it follows that on some level, the animal understands and has the necessary intelligence (which I don't think is all that great of an amount) to exercise consent.
|
| 886Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 01:56
If it is consent by human definition and human definition only that we care about, then OUR (human's) idea of consent is only valid for other humans, and ceases to be a factor when dealing with non-humans.
|
| 887Report |
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 22 Jun 2006: 05:56
>>883
WTF? Seriously dude, courts go by that definition too. It's not Juberu's theory, it's the currently accepted theory. That's how they decide things like date rape, fraud, etc.
>>885
Uh... he doesn't. He doesn't think they can, and zoos do think they can. Neither side "knows" anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Shit dude, neither side "knows" enough to even make an educated guess.
>>886
Yeah right. That doesn't even make sense.
>>867
Svan, seriously man, don't do that. It's as bad as the meat eating thing. The morality of riding horses has nothing to do with the morality of fucking horses unless you're fucking horses BECAUSE people are riding them. Are you saying the only reason zoos fuck horses is because of horseback riding?
All you can prove with that is that riding horses may or may not be wrong. Sex is a seperate issue, or similar at best dude.
>>865
Yo man, that's a cool way of looking at things, but it only builds a frame right? There's still no way of measuring the "degrees" of right and wrong when weighing duty, respect, and benifit, especially when other complications enter the picture. I mean, by definition, if the anti-zoos are right, then the zoos are deviant, and possibly unstable.
How would insanity fit in here? If someone was delusional enough to believe that what they were doing WAS respectful, does that make it right when they're doing it, and wrong when other people do it? I'm guessing no (murder and such), but then where do you draw the line? How crazy is crazy? I mean, there's people who think their dogs talk. They're out of their minds. Then there's people who think dogs are just dogs, and don't worry about the deeper implications. Sane people, ie, the majority. Some fall between, including zoophiles.
Me... I think some of them are delusional and are seeing what they want to see instead of what's there, and I'm pretty sure the rest just like to fuck animals, and don't sweat the moral issues unless pressed to justify themselves (most would use denial I imagine, except online where it's "safe"). But I can't really explain why I think zoophiles are nutty or amoral, while... I dunno... golfers are just normal. I mean, how much habitat gets wiped out to make a golf course?
Anyhow, thanks for brining something kinda new to the table, and don't sweat the read. If you read the first 200, you read the whole thing... or you may as well have.
|
| 888Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 Jun 2006: 09:01
>>882
The sad part is..with the way some of you struggle. If a guy is tied to the floor..gagged and bound so he couldn't move...then an animal takes advantage of his rear since its so open. Then with the definition many of you are using..the man would have raped the animal..since the animal didn't concent to it being done.
No, the man wouldn've been raped; he didn't "consent" either. Nice straw man, though.
>>883
I myself never suggested yours should go out the window you assumed I did.
I said your side, not you. I've seen it explicitly stated at least once.
Now please quit trying to bloody well impose your standerds on others who have a totally different understanding of how things work.
Arguing againt something you think is wrong=/= OMG PERSECUTION.
>>885
HOW do you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that an animal cannot understand consent?
I said "conclusive". That meant "without a reasonable doubt". I was referring to the twofold assumption;
1. Animals can understand human "consent".
2. Animals can communicate it.
IF an animal can show signs of resistance or other non-language based means of saying "no" (WHICH THEY DO, as just described), then it follows that on some level, the animal understands and has the necessary intelligence (which I don't think is all that great of an amount) to exercise consent.
There is no intervening logic here. You went If [premise], Then [conclusion]. Not If [premise], then [logic], therefore [conclusion].
|
| 889Report |
Svansfall at 22 Jun 2006: 14:06
>>873
Hello OddlyEnough,
I am not sure if I read you correctly. Are you saying that the animal does not know that she enjoys the pleasure, and is only seeking the pleasure because she does not know any better, and that I would be showing her more respect by not giving her the pleasure that she is seeking?
If that is what you meant, I must disagree. Stimulation of genitalia is enjoyed by many individuals, and they are fully aware that they find it enjoyable. I'll repeat something I've said before now, in case you've not read all posts: When they are in heat, they are trying their best to relieve their sexual tension by rubbing themselves up against trees, or anything similar they can find. This is rarely sufficient and usually leaves them frustrated and annoyed. Once they have been stimulated and brought to orgasm, their sexual tension lessens, and they calm down and relax.
>>876
Hello Anonaconda,
Don't worry, I don't feel insulted by what you said. But some people reading your post could choose to interpret it to mean that "all zoophiles/bestialists" are like that guy, so I wrote to clarify that it is not the case. Zoophiles/bestialists are not a homogenous group of people who are all the same. You know that, but not everyone knows it. Thanks for posting.
>>887
Hello Grap,
There is no "because" in the comparison of this issue, just like there wasn't a "because" in the comparison I made earlier in the discussion. There is no need for a "because" in order to compare two similar examples.
The comparison being made is "How can we treat animals?" in two different areas.
Example: People in Town A is discussing their traffic situation. In order to discuss it, they are making comparisons to the traffic situation in Town B. This helps them see things from other angles. The comparisons are being made, even though the traffic situation in Town A is NOT the way it is BECAUSE of the traffic situation in Town B. The two traffic situations can be totally unrelated, and still be a valid comparison for the people in Town A to discuss.
They are discussing two similar examples, in two different areas.
What we're dicussing here is "How can we treat animals?" when it comes to having sexual relations with them. Therefor, a discussion of "How can we treat animals?" in other non-sexual areas also apply to this discussion, regardless of any "because" being present or not.
The difference is that humans stigmatise sex, but they do not stigmatise horseback riding. The horse does not stigmatise sex. From the horse's point of view, what they care about is being treated well, not becoming stressed, and having their desires respected.
I am not thinking that horseback riding is wrong. It can be wrong if you are careless, if you do things the horse does not like, if you stress the horse and if you don't care about treating them well.
Some horses show clearly that they enjoy being ridden. They desire and enjoy the interraction and mental stimulation that it gives them. I do not feel this is wrong at all.
Likewise, I don't feel that sex with horses is wrong. It can be wrong if you are careless, if you do things the horse does not like, if you stress the horse and if you don't care about treating them well.
The comparison of "How we treat animals?" is valid, wheter it is a sexual situation or not.
|
| 890Report |
DragonFlame at 22 Jun 2006: 14:38
I need to clarify this. If animals dont undersatnd the concept of Consent then do they not understand the concept of Rape.
This is my opinion but rape is something that a person thinks that has happened to them. If rape is not understood by animals is it possible to actually rape an Animal?
Also Rape is defined as a crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, if an Animal is not forced then is this called rape still?
Lastly Rape in courts are considered forceful sex between two humans not animals, is this then still called rape?
|
| 891Report |
DragonFlame at 22 Jun 2006: 14:40
Some thing funny but a bit off topic.
One of the Definitions for Bestiality.
The quality or condition of being an animal or like an animal.
Does that mean that all furrys are in fact practicing Bestiality?
|
| 892Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 Jun 2006: 16:14
>>890
If rape is not understood by animals is it possible to actually rape an Animal?
If an orderly has sex with someone in a coma, and they die before waking up, is that rape? They don't understand consent, or rape.
Also Rape is defined as a crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts,
Legally, yes, and that still ignores statutory rape. The common usage definition is "sex without consent", and you know it.
Lastly Rape in courts are considered forceful sex between two humans not animals, is this then still called rape?
Again, that's legal, not practical, common usage.
|
| 893Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 17:52
I don't know if this has been brought up yet. The excitement of knowing it's wrong. Kind of like having sex with a co-worker, at work. You know if you get caught it means a lot of trouble. The excitement makes the sex better. I'm not saying that's every situation. Some may have an actual attraction to animals.
|
| 894Report |
Anonaconda at 22 Jun 2006: 18:39
>>887
"WTF? Seriously dude, courts go by that definition too. It's not Juberu's theory, it's the currently accepted theory. That's how they decide things like date rape, fraud, etc."
In a court of law, if a woman has not been drugged, is not under coercion and fails to say "no" to a man's advances, and is over the age of 18, she cannot press rape charges.
In a court of law, NOT saying "no" to sex is the same as saying "yes" to it. Not expressly saying "yes" to sex is not required for consent. Consent is allowing something to happen.
>>889
"The comparison of "How we treat animals?" is valid, whether it is a sexual situation or not."
Exactly! Why should two parallel issues be separated just because they are not exaclty the same? Many of the tenants surrounding issues of animal use in other areas are basically the same. The only difference is that sex is involved and, like you said, sex is stigmatized in western culture. Thus, sex makes all the difference in the world. Strange how the resultant condition of the animal bears no relevance to any issue surrounding the treatment of animals.
To them:
Meat is okay because we need to eat food (never mind the fact that there are substitutes that are cheaper and even healthier for you like eggs and soy beans). The fact that animals die horrible deaths and get treated like shit has no bearing on the morality of eating meat to them. Some anti-zoos have even gone so far as to say that not eating meat is immoral because it hurts all the hard workers in that industry. Frankly, I don't have to eat meat and I don't owe those ignorant simpletons a damn thing. Frankly, I don't give a damn if they loose there jobs because people quit eating meat. An't capitalism a bitch?
Riding horses is not immoral to them because it doesn't involve sex. For some odd reason, sex is the only thing you need consent from an animal for. For everything else (other than mindless cruelty) consent is never required.
Having sex with an animal is immoral to them, not because it brings animals harm, but because an animal is not able to consent as humans can consent. Do they ever mention that beastiality is immoral because it hurts the animal? No, they never did.
My conclusion? Anti-Zoos care more about human behavior than about animal welfare. This is empirically proven by there attitudes towards meat. The don't give a damn about animal pain, cruelty or suffering, just as long as it can be rationalized away with the majority’s paradigm.
The ideal zoophile has cares more about animals and has more empathy for them than any anti-zoo ever could. The ideal zoos love and cherish there companions and probably would even give there lives for them. Could you say the same thing about a typical, or even the ideal factory farm worker?
The only real reason they don't want meat discussed is because it forces them to confront the morality of eating meat, and they don't want to give up there consumption of flesh. If bestiality is wrong, so is eating meat because these issues are parallel. If they proclaim eating meat is okay, then they must conclude that bestiality is okay. The meat issues boxes them into a corner, so they make unfounded statements about how the meat issue and zoophilia are perpendicular issues, rather than parallel ones. Ignoring the comparison keeps them from feeling personal moral conflict, which they do not want to deal with.
I can't wait to see Juberu call this a straw man, when he should be calling it a spade.
>>890
The best anti-zoos can hope for is an argument that having sex with an animal is no different than statutory rape. But you could just as easily say that this is a separate issues and not relevant to the discussion because that’s people and not animals. They are, thus separate issues. It’s the same logic the anti-zoos use when they refuse to discuss the meat issue.
The ani-zoos have yet to explain how animals are like minors without dancing around vague comparisons or without focusing on how they view zoophiles are like pedophiles. Don’t you see there logic. Because zoophiles are like pedophiles (which they never proved empirically or observationally), animals are thusly like children. It’s an analogy argument. But, again, they never focus on the animal, just the human. Only the human is relevant to there argument, and never the animal.
Also, anti-zoos have yet to explain what human consent is. They keep dancing around the word, but if the word is not clearly defined, it is impossible to prove that animals can or cannot consent. Zoophiles define consent with adult animals as not receiving any signal from the animal that the activity is undesired by them.
Anti-zoos then say that, because humans are so much more elevated than animals, we have a duty to obtain human level consent (not animal level consent). WHY THIS IS HAS YET TO BE EXPLAINED. (caps for emphasis, not yelling) Human level consent is the key anti-zoos have given the pro-zoos in order to have sex with animals. But guess what? It’s a key that does not fit the lock! Why? Because human level consent is only relevant to humans. That is why we are calling it human level consent, duh! It is beyond there sphere of relevance. Animals don’t care about human level consent. It matters not to them. Because it doesn’t matter to them, it should not matter to us. In order to be fair, the animal is the one who must obtain human level of consent with human, while the human must seek out animal level consent from the animal. The only thing that matters to animals is animal level consent, which is all that we should care about.
|
| 895Report |
Anonaconda at 22 Jun 2006: 18:43
>>893
Fear of getting caught is different than a feeling that you did wrong.
|
| 896Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 Jun 2006: 18:53
>>894
The ani-zoos have yet to explain how animals are like minors without dancing around vague comparisons or without focusing on how they view zoophiles are like pedophiles.
Ookay.
Zoos argue that since the animal cannot understand consent, it isn't relevant, what they are doing is not rape. Pedophiles commonly use the exact same logic. Both groups are considered to be "taking advantage" of something/someone.
Anti-zoos then say that, because humans are so much more elevated than animals, we have a duty to obtain human level consent (not animal level consent).
I, personally, said that we have a different, more complicated definiton of consent.
Human level consent is the key anti-zoos have given the pro-zoos in order to have sex with animals. But guess what? It’s a key that does not fit the lock! Why? Because human level consent is only relevant to humans.
By that logic, animal-level consent is only relevant to animals.
Animals don’t care about human level consent. It matters not to them. Because it doesn’t matter to them, it should not matter to us.
The only thing that matters to animals is animal level consent, which is all that we should care about.
And this is something *I* want explained. After all, there's still a human in the relationship. Replace "animal" with "A" and "human" with "B", and the entire argument starts to look silly. If the animal can't understand "human-level" consent, why are we dropping down to their level? Because they don't understand it? So if a guy kills his wifes lover in an elaborate deathtrap, and doesn't understand he was wrong, we should let him off, right? We should go by his "murderer-level" definition of "murder", right?
|
| 897Report |
Guan at 22 Jun 2006: 19:25
And thus we roughly approach the next 100 threads or so. *dances around in circles while riding a horse and carrying either a chicken or an egg*
|
| 898Report |
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 22 Jun 2006: 19:39
>>894
WTF? You're bringing law into this again? Bestiality is either illegal, or taboo, EVERYWHERE! At best, it's a disgusting, if not illegal thing to do.
In a court of law, animal fuckers usually go to prison. This is a morality argument here, not a legal argument. And the whole "lack of dissent equals consent" thing is sexual predator talk. Give your head a shake. Lack of dissent is lack of dissent, dissent is dissent, and consent is consent. It's common sense on this one. Jesus.
>>889
You missed the point dude. What I mean is, in a disscussion about the morality of something, comparing it to something else doesn't get you anywhere unless you're saying "Since this is okay, that is okay", but then you have to go on and show WHY that follows. You keep misdirecting people by pointing out irrelevant shit, and it's not getting anything anywhere.
Here, I'll do it to you: If caring for animals is so important to you, why are you using a computer? Computers are made of plastic and metal, and use electricity to run. Incredible ammounts of habitat have been destroyed in order to produce and ship that computer out to you. By using that computer, you're effectively saying it's okay to slaughter animals just so you can have a flashy box to look at. If you really cared about animals and their well being, you wouldn't use something like that, thus contributing to the industry, etc.
You see how, while all of that is technically true, that it has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN THIS DISCUSSION!? See how I trap you and attack your character by bringing something into the argument that has nothing to do with fucking animals? Annoying isn't it?
|
| 899Report |
Guan at 22 Jun 2006: 19:49
>>898 Not only is it annoying, it also hurts your credibility. As does getting angry and using ALL CAPS. Of course, that would be implying credibility still exists this late in the argument. I ought to go so far as to try and help you powerhouses still championing these points realize that you frankly have little of anything new enough to remarkably contribute to this thread or change anyone's attitude, and that further argument is silly, but then we'd never get to 1000 and the rest of us out there would lose entertained interest. So please do continue.
Oh, and post 900 is up for grabs. Go get it, boy/girl! :D
|
| 900Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 20:10
I like pie
|
| 901Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 20:11
Draw a circle.
That is this thread.
|
| 902Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 20:25
>>901 Yeah, this argument might sound like a broken record, but you're not doing much better yourself. :P
|
| 903Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 Jun 2006: 20:34
>>899
"Credibility" is a measure of how believable something is. Not how valid it is. It's superficial BS.
|
| 904Report |
Guan at 22 Jun 2006: 20:44
>>903 Dude. Aren't you even the least bit tired yet, standing up on that soapbox of yours? You could at least shift your feet every now and then. Perhaps I could get you something to drink? o..o
|
| 905Report |
Juberu at 22 Jun 2006: 21:28
Well, you're responding to me, aren't you?
|
| 906Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 21:45
>>896
"By that logic, animal-level consent is only relevant to animals."
Holy shit! That’s the point we’ve been trying to make all along! How can a person get my point and yet miss it so completely? Yeash!
The entire zoo argument you focus on is based on humans only being required reach a level of consent relevant to the animals, because anything less would bring them harm. The zoo argument places animal wellbeing over human conduct.
It is so frustrating that you almost get it, but don't quite get it.
>>898
I wasn't the one who brought up law! I was simply going over the law for clarity, since it was already mentioned and because so many laws are based on moral thought. My focus was on the basis for the law, not the law itself. You are either very thick, overly eager to get your digs in, or you are so biased that you are blind to reason. I'll fucking talk about what I fucking want to talk about. What kind of asshole are you to tell me what I can and cannot say? Don't shut me down with twisted logic just because you don't want to deal with the points I made.
"At best, it's a disgusting, if not illegal thing to do."
Legality is a mater of fact, but disgust is a mater of opinion, so quit stating it as fact.
"In a court of law, animal fuckers usually go to prison."
Thank you so much, Professor Obvious, for that brilliant fact finding! Gee, I did not know that fucking an animal is illegal in certain parts of the world, nor did I realize that, when prosecuted, those caught in the act often go to prison. Oh, were would I be without your brilliant intellect to point these tidbits out to me?
"This is a morality argument here, not a legal argument."
Yes, but judicial decisions and interpretations, when the law is not clear, are often based on morality and moral arguments! Didn't you ever learn that in civics? Also, laws are supposed to reflect the morality of society in democratic governments, which is partly why I brought this up. Generally speaking, morality and law go hand in hand. What is not up for dispute, and this was determined early in this thread, is the factual legality of bestiality (which was shown to be regionally legal/illegal). The idea that law can absolutely not be brought up in this discussion was your invention. My bringing up of law is perfectly valid if I’m talking about the morality upon which the law was based.
"And the whole "lack of dissent equals consent" thing is sexual predator talk."
Okay, buddy, prove it. Show me, point by point, how the profiles of zoophiles and pedophiles are in lock step. I've actually taken the time to research pedophiles, and they are neither the same in method nor in motivation. I challenge you to prove pedophiles and zoophiles are alike because, frankly, when you say subjective things like "That's predator talk", you sound very ignorant, almost like a religious nut.
"You keep misdirecting people by pointing out irrelevant shit, and it's not getting anything anywhere."
It's not irrelevant "shit" when the two issues are parallel. You just like to say it is irrelevant because it is such an easy and lazy way to hide form valid points you are afraid to talk about. I made my comparisons and you ignored them, rather than refuted them. Clearly, this is a weak point in your argument, and you refuse to discuss it. You’re so hell-bent on proving that bestiality is immoral that you can't even see past your own bias and how it distorts your view of reality and how you see this discussion.
"See how I trap you and attack your character by bringing something into the argument that has nothing to do with fucking animals? Annoying isn't it?"
You are oversimplifying habitat destruction, and you know it! Yeah, that does have nothing to do with the discussion and your analogy is false, and I'm not going to explain why because you said you already knew.
But my analogy between the meat industry and zoosexuality is pertinent because consent isn't the issue I care about, nor do I care about human behavior or standards of practice. The issue that is relevant to me is animal cruelty, since cruel things are often immoral. If cruelty is a basis for morality, then the meat issue has everything to do with the morality of zoophiles. I am not oversimplifying the meat issue like you oversimplified habitat destruction, which you could study to no end. The meat industry is quite simple by comparision.
What's really anoying is how thick and biased you are.
>>903
"It's superficial BS."
Much like your argument. You know what, you still haven't shown me why human "superiority" is the reason why human level consent is required.
>>904
What he needs is a nice draft beer and a good lay to unwind all those tight kinks.
|
| 907Report (sage) |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 22 Jun 2006: 22:17
"By that logic, animal-level consent is only relevant to animals."
If that's the point you were trying to make, animal-level consent is *irrelevant* to humans, or anything that isnt an animal.
Or would you like to rephrase?
|
| 908Report |
Guan at 22 Jun 2006: 22:19
>>905 Touché, although the same could be said for you my good man. ;}
>>906 Yeah, maybe we all need a beer. Several, in fact. And then let's all go out and drive. Maybe that way we won't create gigassive topics that seem to require huge, pointless responses. Not that you guys are starting to get predictable or anything.
By the way, does this discussion board make my ass look smarter? O..o
|
| 909Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 22:41
Wow, not only are we flirting with 1000 posts, but this little quagmire has gone nearly two months.
>>908
Never seen your ass but probably :/
Has anyone watched a NASCAR race, round and round in circles trying to find the end? Did we really come from monkeys?
|
| 910Report |
at 22 Jun 2006: 23:58
wow the word fursecution was used by someone.. I was wondering when that angle in a conversation abought zoos would be used or attempt to be used. omg antzoosecution .. wait that sounds retarded to.....
|
| 911Report |
tyciol at 23 Jun 2006: 09:22
Wow, a lot of posts here, not about to read them all until these forums get easier on the eye, but I'll add my input on one thing post 871 made me think of.
How could you tell whether or not Helen Keller consented? Deaf mutes can communicate through sign language, sure, but it's hard to pick up on that during sex.
Would it be like BDSM where you have to come up with some kinda signal?
Even so, what if you met some foreign person who you couldn't communicate with, but you had an obvious attraction to? Before they came up with sign language and braille (or literacy) this was how it was done!
Has anyone read the Dream of Eagles series interpreation of the Merlin legends? His first wife, the one who met an untimely end, they couldn't communicate in words in the slightest... but their love was so not rape. I'd say it could eventually be the same with animals.
|
| 912Report |
at 23 Jun 2006: 12:49
>>911
This is where violence can be helpful. And is obviously necessary, as one can tell by the nature of some posts in this thread. A deaf-mute such as Hellen Keller can communicate no-consent by slapping the person, attempting to back off/run away, throwing something at the person, scratching them, etc. Pretty clear signal.
Now, if you something to overpower that initial sign of no-consent (such as forceful bondage, etc.), or, if you did something *violent and forceful* where the target would be fearful of showing no-consent (saying "don't resist or I'll kill you" for another person, before they had a chance to do anything), then yes, continuing would be coercion/rape.
Some may say befriending somebody/an animal to where they trust you and will not resist in such a situation is tantamount to rape. Bullshit. That's called persuasion, or even friendship in some instances, NOT coercion. Coercion must be violent/harmful, or involve a threat of violence/harm.
|
| 913Report |
OddlyEnough at 23 Jun 2006: 13:51
I am afraid that I do not know to make quotes as others so, so forgive me for my mere copy / pasting.
>>889 - Hello Svansfall.
"Hello OddlyEnough,
I am not sure if I read you correctly. Are you saying that the animal does not know that she enjoys the pleasure, and is only seeking the pleasure because she does not know any better, and that I would be showing her more respect by not giving her the pleasure that she is seeking?
If that is what you meant, I must disagree. Stimulation of genitalia is enjoyed by many individuals, and they are fully aware that they find it enjoyable. I'll repeat something I've said before now, in case you've not read all posts: When they are in heat, they are trying their best to relieve their sexual tension by rubbing themselves up against trees, or anything similar they can find. This is rarely sufficient and usually leaves them frustrated and annoyed. Once they have been stimulated and brought to orgasm, their sexual tension lessens, and they calm down and relax."
I am not sure where the confusion lies, because I haven't made any claims as to the abilities of animals to experience pleasure, or whether or not any individual animal would choose to seek pleasure in such a manner 'if it knew better' (which I take to say if it have mental capacities similar to that of humans, or at least much improved).
I believe you also misunderstand my use of respect. We have duties to treat others with respect (recognition and affirmation of their rational choice and autonomy), perhaps whether or not such a creature is 'deserving' of such respect (although I believe many supporters of animal-human sexual relations would be loath to claim that they are not).
By engaging in sexual relations, we violate a duty we have to obtain fully informed and rational considered agreement to engage in the sexual activity with any individuals. By obtaining this 'consent,' we affirm their autonomy. By not doing so, we strongly violate it. At least on the subject of sex.
As such, one will have wronged by violating our duty of respect (in a sense "disrespecting" the other). However, the wrong does not come from the fact that we have "disrespected" that other, but because we have violated our duty not to do so.
The distinction here is strange for some, but there reasons for it, namely having to do with the defense of constraints and arguments against consequentialsm.
Showing respect is a different kind of use of the word respect. My use is more along the lines of recognition and affirmation of autonomy, yours is more of recognition and affirmation of desires. It is not 'respecting' something to fufill its desires under my definition. It is benificent. And as I said, I believe our duty to be benificent is outweight by our duty of respect.
This issue also gets more complicated when you have to consider things such as physician assisted suicide, abortion, and so on... but this is a furry board, and a topic on beastiality, no? We can consider those subjects at another time.
I hope this clears things up. I don't think you were being equivocal, and I hope there is no more confusion. Please feel free to ask for clairification or offer more criticism of my opinion. I hold no disrespect for you for doing so, and actually welcome such opportunities to test and refine my moral beliefs, for without such opportunities I would surely hold a much more simple and base belief than I do now.
- - - - -
>>885 , Hello GrapeTang
">>865
Yo man, that's a cool way of looking at things, but it only builds a frame right? There's still no way of measuring the "degrees" of right and wrong when weighing duty, respect, and benifit, especially when other complications enter the picture. I mean, by definition, if the anti-zoos are right, then the zoos are deviant, and possibly unstable.
How would insanity fit in here? If someone was delusional enough to believe that what they were doing WAS respectful, does that make it right when they're doing it, and wrong when other people do it? I'm guessing no (murder and such), but then where do you draw the line? How crazy is crazy? I mean, there's people who think their dogs talk. They're out of their minds. Then there's people who think dogs are just dogs, and don't worry about the deeper implications. Sane people, ie, the majority. Some fall between, including zoophiles.
Me... I think some of them are delusional and are seeing what they want to see instead of what's there, and I'm pretty sure the rest just like to fuck animals, and don't sweat the moral issues unless pressed to justify themselves (most would use denial I imagine, except online where it's "safe"). But I can't really explain why I think zoophiles are nutty or amoral, while... I dunno... golfers are just normal. I mean, how much habitat gets wiped out to make a golf course?
Anyhow, thanks for brining something kinda new to the table, and don't sweat the read. If you read the first 200, you read the whole thing... or you may as well have."
Thank you for your compliment. One of the reasons I had for turning to believe in this theory over a more strictly Kantian one was the issue of beastiality, among others. Other victim-focused theories I considered could not find a way to object to beastiality, whereas an agent-focused one can.
The first objection you raise is actually a very difficult problem for any moral theory, even in ones where you define the right / good on very simple terms (like utilitarianism does). Its not one that can be easily answered, because it involves giving quantification to something without definite measure! In the end, it really isn't possible to apply moral theories to things like law without being arbitrary (Although law itself is arbitrary too in our perception of the wrongness of various criminal acts). You just have to consider the weights of various duties yourself do the best you can. No moral theory is 'the right one.' Not to say that m
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "I mean, by definition, if the anti-zoos are right, then the zoos are deviant, and possibly unstable." It may be that they are acting immorally, and they certainly are deviant in that it is not a 'societally accepted' practice, but I wouldn't go so far as to make claim to their mental states.
Your question of insanity actually brings up an interesting problem. My theory is more concerned with people not violating their own duties rather than making sure that there are the least number of violations. The duties are prima facie ('pre-existing' in a sense), so that people do not understand them or become delusional is not an issue.
A delusional man who violates his duties is committing immoral acts, but he is likely not blameworthy for them. This is a very important distinction which is to some counter intuitive, but if you think about it is not hard to see. (We don't say that the person has done nothing wrong, but he isn't at fault for it because of his abnormal mental state.)
The problem that is brought up is whether or not others should stop him. Although now that I think about it, it isn't much of an issue, because our duties would say that stopping him from murdering is benificent (both to him and his victim) in a way that outweighs respecting the autonomy which he cannot exercise.
It also may be the case that agents do not act in the optimal moral fashion a majority of the time. It is kind of a depressing thought, but it is true.
One interesting side effect of my kind of theory which you may find interesting is that I don't believe I have a right to life, and mean it! What I really believe is that other people have a duty not to kill me.
- - - - -
>>890 , DragonFlame
"Yes, it is possible to Rape an animal. One does not need to understand the definition of an act to have it performed upon them unless the very meaning of the act is based on that understanding. I cannot think of such an activity off the top of my head."
The definition of the act based on law? That I am not entirely sure. If you read my previous posts, you can probably glean that I would understand rape as violation of the duty of respect in regards to sexual activity and intercourse.
>>885
"HOW do you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that an animal cannot understand consent?"
How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do?
(A response will probably have to in involve an explanation of your criterion of knowledge, or at least an explanation of your definiton of consent)
Until next time.
|
| 914Report |
verix at 23 Jun 2006: 15:21
Bestiality is just a liberal conspiracy, no sane person would actually believe it's a real thing. Clearly the liberals have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes here.
|
| 915Report |
Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 23 Jun 2006: 15:31
OMG LIBERAL HIPPIES!
>>913
I am afraid that I do not know to make quotes as others so, so forgive me for my mere copy / pasting.
That right pointing bracket-">"- followed by a space, then the quoted content. The quote ends on line breaks, which bugs me.
|
| 916Report |
Svansfall at 23 Jun 2006: 17:00
>>898
Hello GrapeTang,
I did not miss your point. I know what you mean, but I simply disagree with you. Comparing similar issues, all dealing with how we treat animals, is a highly relevant part of the discussion. Regardless of wheter A affects B or not - a comparison between A and B can still be useful, in the case that A and B are similar and related issues.
Most kinds of comparisons in general conversation or discussion are comparisons between similar, comparable things, and most often, the things being compared does not affect each other in any way.
Example: Two friends are discussing their cars. One of them thinks the acceleration of his car is really slow, he discusses it with his friend and after making comparisons it turns out the acceleration of his friend's car was even slower.
Now, the acceleration of his car is not affected by the acceleration of the other person's car. His car's acceleration is not fast, just because his friend's car's acceleration is slower. Still, the comparison made him realize that maybe it wasn't as slow as he thought at first. This means that the comparisons between the cars were useful, despite the fact that one car's acceleration did not affect the other car's acceleration.
Two issues does not have to affect each other in order to be comparable issues.
>>913
Hello OddlyEnough,
Yes, you are correct - I did misunderstand your use of the word respect. It took me quite a while, and a lot of looking up words in my dictionary, but I think I understand what you mean now. You are using a lot of complicated words that does not exist in my vocabulary. I don't mind it, on the contrary I prefer your way of writing, and when I write in my native language I try and write in the same style as you are. But if I would be writing in Swedish here, I would not get my meaning across, so my bad English will have to suffice.
You have an interesting view of morality, and while I can partially agree with it, I do not agree with it on the whole. My view of what is right or wrong is a little more simple than your complex view. I still cannot be 100% certain that I got your view right, but if I did, it means that something that does not harm anyone, and is nothing but beneficial to everyone involved can still be wrong in your view.
I respect your right to have this view, and I cannot see that your view of morality can be harmful to anyone.
Still, in my view: When all parts involved benefit from an action, and no one gets any kind of short-term or long-term harm, I do believe it is not bad.
Thanks for your interesting input, OddlyEnough.
|
| 917Report |
Svansfall at 23 Jun 2006: 17:23
>>916
I should perhaps add for clarification that when I speak of no short-term or long-term harm, I am including the need to make sure that the individual is actively desiring the above mentioned action, not merely tolerating, but actively wanting it.
|
| 918Report |
at 23 Jun 2006: 18:27
goooo 1000
|
| 919Report |
at 23 Jun 2006: 19:31
Ya know, I just spent the last couple hours chasing links around live journal and such.(I would like to thank juberu for pointing out those links that led me there. and holey shit there are a bunch more pro zoo furries, pro zoo furry groups and related out there than I had ever imagined. its kinda frightening, nono it is frightening and that is keeping in mind that,
I am suportive of zoophiles because of past experiences of my own.
on surface value it would appear to be more likely that my past comment of far more furs are zoos than we suspect might be truer than I had ever imagined.
thoughts on that anyone.
|
| 920Report |
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 24 Jun 2006: 17:41
>>899
Sorry dude. I use caps for emphasis, not net shouting. I would have used italics, but I can't. I can see the mix-up though.
>>906
Oh Noes, an internet tough guy.
What kind of asshole are you to tell me what I can and cannot say?
Legality is a mater of fact, but disgust is a mater of opinion, so quit stating it as fact.
Seriously? And you call me thick? That's awesome!
Okay, buddy, prove it. Show me, point by point, how the profiles of zoophiles and pedophiles are in lock step.
Uh... pedophiles? Them too I guess, but I said sexual predators, including the asshole that you wouldn't let near your sister. I'm not going to prove it, because it's common sense, and if you don't see it, nothing I say will make you see it... especially since I did go through it step by step.
"Lack of dissent is lack of dissent, dissent is dissent, and consent is consent."
Next time quote the whole thing. Makes you sound ignorant when you bring things up out of context.
You’re so hell-bent on proving that bestiality is immoral that you can't even see past your own bias and how it distorts your view of reality and how you see this discussion.
Go back and read all the posts by GrapeTang. I think bestiality is probably wrong, and I do think it's gross, but ultimately I'm a fence sitter. I think eating boogers is gross too, but I don't think people should go to jail for it. Jesus, what are you, 14? Respond to what people say, not what you trhink they say.
But my analogy between the meat industry and zoosexuality is pertinent because consent isn't the issue I care about, nor do I care about human behavior or standards of practice. The issue that is relevant to me is animal cruelty, since cruel things are often immoral.
Well, that's fine I guess, but most of the people here are arguing consent, so... you know... what's your point then? Humans are mean to animals? Uh, DUH! Is it right? Probably not. There you go, you win, people are immoral etc etc. Welcome aboard.
What's really anoying is how thick and biased you are.
Yeah yeah, I'm a total savage. You may call me grug. Now go practice reading, and maybe do something about some of that self important angst. You're coming off as immature, and it's hard to take your arguments seriously.
>>913
Cool man, I think I get it. Insanity means that you aren't able to see your duty, and you divide actions and intentions. That actually works. Actions can be moral or immoral, and as rational people, we're obligated to ensure the moral actions and prevent the immoral actions, otherwise we become immoral people.
Course, we still need to work out what IS moral and immoral. Closest I can figure is a complex system of putting yourself in the other's shoes, but by the time people become mature enough to handle this kind of thing, they're too burried in their possessions and lifestyle to risk jeopardizing it on behalf of "mere morals". Kind of a downer really.
>>916
Okay, then I'm sticking to the computer analogy. As far as I can tell, by using a computer, you're saying that it's okay for animals and habitat to be obliterated so that you can have the luxury of a computer, with which to argue on the internet, and other important things like that. My reasoning for you advocating all those animals being killed: you have a computer, and you haven't gotten rid of it.
Don't worry though. I'm with you on that one... but I will point out the irony that you're so gung-ho about, oh, not eating meat because it's unnecessary (we can do without it, and it causes undo harm tot he animals etc), yet you have a computer, and likely, all the other modern conviniences that come at a price of mass animal death, among other things.
Of course, by this reasoning, finger fucking your cows is a relatively minor point, no where near the scale of suffering and depravity towards animals that results just by being a modern human... but you aren't saying bestiality is a lesser evil, you're saying it's good, and I don't buy that.
>>919
Yeah... bigger than I thought too among the furries. Just don't spread it around too much. The 4Channers are already annoying enough; we don't need to prove them right about something.
>>918
Dude, Xenofur's totally going to get post 1000. If I were him, I'd have this thing set to autolock at 999, just so I could get the 1000 get. :p
|
| 1003Add Reply |
This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore. |