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
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 22 Jun 2006: 05:56


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.

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.

Yeah right. That doesn't even make sense.

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.

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.

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.