fchan

>>958
And as a heterosexual, I don't like being compared to animal-fuckers.

>>944

Uh, Svansfall, you keep bringing up the same "What's wrong with giving pleasure" argument. I don't remember anyone saying that pleasuring animals was wrong. Nobody is saying that making animals feel good is wrong, or they'd be against treating animals well. What they're saying is that you're wrong DESPITE the pleasure. Maybe you should respond to what they say instead of some imaginary argument that nobody ever made.

The closest I can think of is the "Why does it have to be sex" post, which you responded to basically by saying "cause I want to". Nobody says making animals feel good is bad. But then, I read this pretty quick. If there's a post that says making animals feel good is bad, then point me to it. Until then, quit asking "Why is it wrong to make an animal feel good", because nobody asked.

Wow, we're getting close to the wire here.  Keeping that in mind, I think the next thread should be titled "Zoophilia: Sexual Orientation or Not" if you guys wish to once again have such a prolific post count as this.  Then again, I believe the whole Western notion of orientation and the labeling system we use to lump people into categories and thus make it simple is rather crumbly and fairly socially-driven...one of the few things I think this argument shows, but that's still for another topic.  ^..^

I wank my corn,
to lovely porn,
Sometimes it's furry,
sometimes it's dirty,
but always it is porn.

When I see a picture,
Where someone gets ruptured,
and dies a horrible death.

Must I then get
A knife or drill bit
and kill someone needlessly.

Animals have genitals,
most humans too.
Why not fantasize
about the two?

Stop- Think: PoV

All the animals on fchan are actually hyper intelligent and choose to have sex on their own.  Any of the artists will gladly confirm this I bet!  Its fantasy, who are you to argue?

Post 971 . 29 to go.

>>970
 
Svansfall your an idiot. In sense of humanity rape is bad. But beyond our little human world window which we view everything. Nature doesn't CARE. The human mind is a sick gland. People can develop strange desires. Yes there are people which get off on raping children and women.. its a rush and something which they find intriguing. There is no possible way to stop it.

In nature.. there are species of animals which rape undoubtfully  to pass on offspring. It is the only way which they do it. There is no possible explination why. Just happens to be as so.

There will always be closet humanity. We hide sexuality and function of our entire brain away from our own children untill they laugh and provoke it and too old to understand it. Were sensative little shits that judge and dement this world and will continue too untill some major diaster comes and fucks our little tiny shithole of a civilization. I cannot wait for that day. I want to die and know humanity just got a nice punch in the FACE to show that were more fragile when we think we our.




There is no such thing as Consent only Concern. Let me use it in a sentence to clarify my statement.

Can I ask for your hand in marriage? (your consenting yourself)
What about people who marry their pets.. LOOPHOLE

No one ever ask someone "Hey can I consent you for sex?"
People are generally "Wanna have sex?"
No one ever said anything about consent because the reply is "okay." It just means that they favor the situation.

Now everyone here is CONCERNED about consent. By babbling on about it and saying who we can fuck and why. But its only your knowledge not mine or theirs just yours. Whats the signifigance of your knowledge versus mine? Sure some may be dumber then others. Trying to lead or tell what others to do doesn't get to brownie points. It more or less hurts your brain.. and makes you do stuff like rape.

Then again what do I know..

TASTES GREAT!
LESS FILLING!

>>974

Yeah right. I'll belive you when I can get in your head. Until then, I'm just going to assume that it's about sex. Despite this, I'm sure you'll find a way to go on in life.

>>964

Yeah, person without a name here. You may call me anonymous, or anon if you're lazy.

Just for clarity, I said this.

>>976 Well, pal, I'm afraid I really didn't care about a lot of what you said up until now.  Let me tell you, you have no idea how many people I've known in my life who never gave two rat's shits about the pleasure of their partner over their own, be it willing or not.  Because of these idiots, I am personally devoted to that balance for both partners, although I still favor my partner's pleasure over mine to a small degree.  If by all people you know, you mean those that you've got to know...well, consider yourself lucky.  Otherwise, you are a very naive person, and I advise you do your research. 

From what I've gathered, I hereby state that zoophiles can be capable of caring and not caring about their animal's pleasure, some with a better notion of the concepts than others.  It depends on the person and the animal and the circumstances and a lot of other fun stuff.  To say it must go one way or another is silly and shows a lack of creative and critical thought.  So there.  :P

>>975
Sorry, I missed one thing.

*lightbulb* and why exactly should sex be different than petting.. no that isnt a good analogy ... okay here is a good analogy
milking has anyone stopped and ponderd what we are doing when milking a cow? touch the cows nipples rythmicly stroke and squeeze them, drink what squirts forth. and sex is bad ??
go be a monk buddy ...
I triple dog dare you to define in any meaningfull way a difference between milking a cow and giving a bull head.
well one you are touching ... so what?? in the other you are touching nipples *both sex parts* you are drinking emmisions in both cases - in neither case did the human gain any signifignat pleasure .
suddenly I realise just how deeply fucked up some people are -
----refering to those people who deep seated issuers with oooooh ew sex is bad----
oh and >>980 back in the 80's I had a newfoundland male that had no intrests in other dogs or people mearly myself as a partner.
  I actually find the sickest people in the world to be those such as yourselves who quickly assume things, such as that the cows have no accses tp others of their own species, that is a convienient cop out on your own part to help create a winnable argument.

>>981
That's not sex. Cows can have their nipples squeezed without sexual pleasure. Also, we can actually use said emissions regardless of any pleasure we get from drinking them.

And we're not saying sex itself is bad, just sex with animals.

What were you saying about distorting people's arguments into weaker forms?

>>983

"If they do have access to others of their own species, why would Svansfall be masturbating them, if he cares so much about their wellbeing? Wouldn't actual *sex* be better?"

I've always said that providing a mate for your animal is the best way to satisfy them.  Who better then a member of there own species with genitalia that actually matches there counterpart!  Just be sure that at least one of them is surgically sterilized (without removal of the gonads).  Plus, if you have kids and they see your animals doing it, they will be taught by example that sex is natural and nothing to be ashamed of (unless expressed inappropriately).

I can, however, think of two and only two cases where manually stimulating an animal would be preferred to providing a mate.  In situations were a bitch has been spayed before sexual maturity, sexual drive can still develop according to my observation.  Since the genitalia of mutilated puppies stay forever juvenile, they are not compatible with mature genitalia of the opposite sex.  Therefore, the only possible way to give them what they want is to manually stimulate them.  However, since I don’t believe in spaying bitches anymore (because I consider it immoral to take sex away from animals), this is not a situation I am likely to ever encounter again.  Correctly, I still stand by the notion that providing a mate is the best think for any animal.

Unfortunately, this leads in to the other situation where I find it necessary to manually stimulate an animal.  Even if a male dog is provided a mate, most bitches (with a few exceptions) do not accept sexual advances from males unless in heat.  This means that, even though male dogs are horney 24/7/365, bitches are only horny for about a week to two weeks twice a year.  Since all bitches go into heat during approximately the same times, providing harems for male dogs does not help there situation.  Thus, male dogs are forced into sexual frustration for 48 to 50 weeks out of the year with no relief in between.  To me, this situation seems unfathomably cruel, even though it is the result of humans selectively breeding them for millennia.  It is interesting to note that male wolves do not suffer from sexual frustration because they still retain a sexual cycle in perfect sink with wolf bitches.  Because male dogs must endure so much frustration, duty to give them relief outweighs any concept of consent in my mind. 

I think what Svansfall is doing, by masturbating his animals, is reach a sort of compromise.  He gets to pleasure his animals without pleasuring himself in a like fashion.  Since he isn’t actually fucking his cows, he isn’t committing bestiality and, thus, escaping any and all moral trappings therein.  He’s trying to walk the line, in other words, without actually crossing over it.  Whether or not he actually crossed that line is another matter entirely. 

I do have one moral question for you, Juber.  But first, a little background on artificial insemination.

When vets perform artificial insemination in dogs, they jerkoff the sperm donning dog and inject that sperm into a bitch’s uterus.  After insemination, the vet then fingers the bitch because it is thought to maximize fertility. 

In cats, the tom’s sperm is harvested under anesthesia so that he will not feel pain from the electrode placed in his rectum.  When the power is turned on in pulses, the semen spills out and is collected.  Queens, unlike males, are orgasmic overulators.  In other words, they must orgasm in order to ovulate.  To do this, the vet manually stimulates the queen with an electric tooth brush or glass rod until she gives off an “aftercry”.  Usually, queens are restrained because they often flee from such stimulation and may attack the vet.

Aside from the greater moral and ethical implications of artificial insemination, what do you view it’s morality in the context of this thread?  I’m genuinely curious of your answer, so please don’t think that this is a setup for a “gotcha” argument.

>>all
the concent argument breaks down in light of things such as milk gathering, sperm gathering, artificial insemination, etc.
unequal aplication of said morality by the practicers of such breaks its moral high ground all to hell. - the reasons have been clearly illistrated by many in this thread.
so does that leave us with its bad because you say it is?

"thats what you say" is very simaler deabting to much of what has been given by yourself dear watson.
the connection is made go look for it.
 I can see yet another double face palming episode looming.
 If you are capable of such a shortsight as that previously then what is to ensure your ability to be observant both in this thread and upon the basic nature of the issue.
and if you are to lazy to look for them your self especially in light of the nature of this thread I wont spoon feed you, sorry.
ill leave you to mull if If I know what illistrate means.

>>989

Yeah, what the hell are you talking about? How many times have people pointed out the difference betweennecessary use of an animal for work, and arbitrary use of an animal because you're horny? What, like a dozen maybe?

>>985

I'll take a shot at that dude. It's a matter of opportunity. If there's a way to collect sperm without hurting the dog that doesn't involve giving him a hand job, then yeah, they should do that instead of the hand job, unless they got a good reason not too (really expensive etc.) For me, the problem I see is that these zoophiles act as if giving up what they do is totally impossible.

Mind you, I see it as less morally wrong as disgusting, so there's a difference there. I don't so much have a problem with zoos, but I refuse to acknowledge their fetish as some sort of legit relationship on any kind of human level. It's not the same as a relationship between two rational human beings. It isn't even a relationship between two rational beings like the hypothetical human/anthro relationship. It's some guy getting his jollies at the expense of an animal. Kinda somewhere between stuffonmycat.com and bear baiting.

>>984

OMG!!! What if none of us are even here at all! I can't prove it, so it must not be true!! Oh Fuck! None of us exist!

>>992 nice come back *bows*
you have in the past made the same assumptions.
and in the past failed the same. now the question is if you can actually grasp the things placed in text under your nose.
please do be carefull young chap, showing your annoyance and being persnickity is at best poor taste.
>>991 you speak with civility and thought, therefore you get a inteletual responce.
milking, semen gathering, butchering, and simaler activities
are no more nessisary than zoophilia - they are all activities that bring pleasure to man in one manner or another.
am I worng in that statement?

>>993 Hey old man! You win at the internets! Your "inteletual responce" would have more impact if it were spelled correctly.

Humans are omnivorous. That means plants AND animals go in our mouths, and that means we eat meat because we were born to, not because of some pleasure response. Just because a handfull of folks decided to switch to being herbavores doesn't mean it's right.

>>994

"Millions of people are employed by the meat and milking industry, and trillions of dollars are tied up in it. To this end, yes, it has become necessary. It's part of our lives, it's part of our heritage, and it runs so deep that it can't be given up without literally ruining more lives than I think anyone can justify just because they want people to concede to their opinion."

I'm sorry, but this is a load.  In a capitalistic and even naturalistic society, nobody owes there neighbor a purchase.  Yeah, if everybody quit eating meat, lots of people would lose there jobs.  Yeah, it would really suck to be one of those people, but that's life.  Times change and markets change, so we must all be willing to adapt to the changing environment.  This is how things work in nature.  If you don't adapt, you die out.  Besides, a lot of those meat industry workers are probably Mexican illegals anyway.

If people quit eating meat, nature is quite literally selecting meat producers for extinction.  To buy meat simply to sustain the industry is to go against nature and every time people go against nature, people run into trouble.  This is also why communism doesn't work, btw.

And this isn't only true for the meat industry.  Any industry you can think of can be applied to this economic theory.  Consider how online baking has severely injured the check printing industry.  People are loosing there jobs because people are banking online!  Does this mean I should buy more checks to other people don't have to loose there jobs?  Hell no, because I don't owe said people a damn thing!  Every able-bodied person is responsible for there own self.  Adapt or go extinct.  No amount of human idealism will change this reality.

"Fourth, the animals you’re trying to protect will suddenly become obsolete, and they’ll largely die off."

Big deal!  They were just going to wind up on somebody's dinner plate anyway.  Also, who cares if a particular breed dies off.  Honestly, why is it so important to sustain a human created breed of cow if humans hypothetically don't need it anymore?

"First of all, you'd need to somehow come up with the resources to turn all the ranches, plants, and warehouses involved in the meat industry, and turn them into vegetable processing and storage apparatus. That sounds simple, but it would cost so much money that I can't even hazard a guess at the capital you'd need to come up with, and quickly."

It actually requires less infrastructure to feed people with plants than it does to feed people with cows.  You see, with cows, you need to feed them with harvested plants, but when you grow plants and then give those plants to cows, there is an energy loss, so it actually requires more land and more fossil fuels to feed people cows than it does plant matter.  When you grow plants, the energy goes directly to the human without the energy loss required to sustain the life of the cow.  Just think of all the farm land you wouldn't need anymore.  And as for the infrastructure used to distribute the food to the cows, that same infrastructure could divert plant that same matter towards the human food industry.

Here's an idea!  Take all that ranch land and turn it into tree farms and hire all those meat workers as loggers.

"If we aren’t using these animals in this manner, it wouldn’t make any sense to keep them. Releasing them would destroy the ecosystem they were let go in, or it would wipe them out, or every now and then, they would adapt without wiping things out (but not very often). Since it isn’t exactly cool to destroy a natural environment with tampered animals, "

Okay, now you’re making up stuff.  Destroy the ecosystem?  Cows?  Give me a break!  These animals are so well adapted to the environments that humans provide them, that they likely would be unable to survive in the wild on there own.  So many of them have been bred to be fat, dumb and stupid (much like the typical westerner).  Easy pickings for wild predators, I'd say.  Bears, wolves and cougars of North America would make short work of them and likely enjoy a population surge because of it.  Take my word for it.  The environment isn't that fragile.  It can adapt quite easily to the change, just like an unstifled economy.

"but apparently, one way is more humane or something."

Actually, you would use less land if you just raised the crops, rather than crops to feed cows.  Less land use and fewer burping cows is the real ecologic benefit.

"OH! For those of you who think I’m bullshitting about how big the meat industry is, just use a little common sense. There’s the ranchers, the butchers, the refrigerator truck drivers, the health inspectors, the people working in the markets selling and preparing meat, the people who make tools for butchering, and preparing meat, the people who build the refrigeration units for the trucks, storage houses, restaurant coolers, etc, and the people who produce, ship, and peddle the condiments used on meat... not to mention the dog food industry (plus shipping and distributing), the leather industry (plus shipping and distributing), and so on."

And if they all lost there jobs because of a changing market dynamic, I would have much sympathy for them but, again, that would be there problem to take care of, not mine.

>>995
"our "inteletual responce" would have more impact if it were spelled correctly."

Hurray for nit-picking bull shitters!

"Humans are omnivorous. That means plants AND animals go in our mouths, and that means we eat meat because we were born to, not because of some pleasure response. Just because a handfull [sic] of folks decided to switch to being herbavores [sic] doesn't mean it's right."

First of all, if you are going to criticize people’s spelling, please spell things correctly yourself.  You spell “handful” with one “l” and “herbivores” is spelled with an “i” not an “a”.

Also, your logic of causality is wrong.  Have you ever considered that the pleasurable response to eating meat is the reason why people continue to eat it?  Have you also considered that we were born to crave foods rich in fat and protein, rather than the notion that we were born to eat meat?  Our mass eating of meat is simply a consequence of our desire to eat fat and protein rich foods.

Omnivory does not imply that any individual was designed to eat any particular food or a particular range of foods.  It is, in fact, a survivability trait.  It means that humans are able to eat a wide variety of foods because the ability to eat many different things improves survivability.  This simply means that we can eat what ever is available, rather than implying what we should eat.

People eat meat because they like it and because they are able.  People like eating meat because they were designed to like it.  The way you describe our motivation implies that we eat meat because of a mindless instinct we have no control over.

999 Grab. Wooooo......

So whos gonna grab 1000.