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 26 Jun 2006: 16:24

Let's see if I can break it down;

Humans can meet animal standards of consent. Animals cannot meet human standards of consent. Why is the human half dropped entirely?

So I made a poor analogy. What about the actual point I was making?

f we can't mention the meat issue (because you guys keep on saying that it is unrelated), then you guys cannot talked about pedophiles anymore, either.

Oh, this is going to be good. I can tell.

To use your arguments against bringing up the meat issue, this topic is about the moralityh of beastiality, not peadophilia.  Go talk about peadophilia some place else.

I was substituting pedophilia for zoo to show how the *logic* in the argument was flawed. The whole meat "argument" thing is basically saying that if Zoo was wrong, then eating meat was also wrong. While this may be true, it had absolutely no relevance to whether bestiality was right or wrong. It's a red herring. I substituted, you associated. Two different things, here.

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.