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 22 Jun 2006: 21:45


"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.


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.


"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.


What he needs is a nice draft beer and a good lay to unwind all those tight kinks. 

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.