991Report |
GrapeTang#90uMe5dJAk at 28 Jun 2006: 22:21
>>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!
The morality of consent and the legality of rape are both based on the deeper morality of preventing harm. In order for an anti-zoo consent argument to work, anti-zoos must establish that having sex with an animal causes harm and/or violates animal rights.
So... if sex without consent is rape, and rape is violating animal rights...
Dude, anti-zoos think either that animals have a right not to be raped, or they think having sex with animals is inherantly wrong (possibly due to religious reasons). The second one, you're never gonna be able to prove them wrong. Not only do you lack the divine style evidence to do so, but you lack the maturity and charisma to even get them to listen to you in the first place. Since you insist on making up their arguments for them, they'll get pissed off, and either ignore you (since they're the majority with the power), or they'll do something to you (since they're the majority with the power). Right now, there's a few fringe weirdos who approve of bestiality. Most people don't care, or find it gross, or are violently against it.
What that means is: Anti-zoos don't have to do sweet fuck all. They already have the power, and they ostracize or criminally punish zoophiles that they catch, depending on the region of the world they're in. If zoos want that to change, they need to actually try to change people's minds, not sit their and act like a bunch of kids who seem to think they can just do whatever, and everyone else just has to put up with it.
As for those who think bestiality is animal rape; those are the ones you have a shot in hell of convincing. If you actually want a shot in hell at changing anything, you'd be better off actually listening to guys like Juberu and some of the anons here, and countering what they say. By screwing with them, you're just making yourself look like an ass, and you ain't convincing nobody except the people already on your side.
Then again, that's probably what you're doing. You don't care about convincing anyone of anything, you're just trying to gain e-status by defending the little guy from (OMG) persecution.
That’s because they are a bunch of puritanical ogres.
Yeah, statements like that, they make you look like an "issues" punk, not mature. It isn't a powerful statement, it isn't even possible to back up... I doubt you even know what puritans are. You clearly have a lot of "issues" to work through, but like everyone else, I suggest you worry about your own "issues", and look to your own intolerance before raising that cross of yours and labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you as a monster.
Which is ironic by the way, since a few points later...
Cut the emotional crap! You can say that his cows are being taken advantage of, etc, but not doomed. Unless you can establish that some grave harm will come to his cows because he finger-fucks them, please refrain from such irrational language. At worst it kills your credibility and at best it distracts your audience from the core of your argument.
>>977
Not so much dude. I'd say it's more along the lines of measuring whether it's worth it to allow/do something about it one way or another. If the vast majority of zoophiles are abusing their animals, maybe it's easier to just target them all instead of investigating circumstances every time. I mean, it's not like they're being asked to give up that much (despite what some fo them say), but the tax dollars involved in an investigation of circumstance would be pretty damn hard to justify spending. I figure hospitals, roads, schools, police stations, and pretty much everything else that tax dollars are spent on is more important then seperating good zoos and bad zoos (if that can even be proven. oy.)
For me, the solution is binary. Either let them all do it, or let none of them do it. I don't think it's an important enough "right" to go any deeper than that. Maybe that's not the most enlightened way of looking at things... but seriously, I don't think enlightenment comes into a conversation regarding bestiality.
|