fchan

discussion

Mr. Hands

Pages:1 41
24Report
at 10 Aug 2009: 17:34

>>20
"defies most scientific work on the subject _by now_."

Did you even read the article?

Recent studies show that animals have a much greater understanding than previously believed. They have a tremendous ability to learn and alter their behaviors which is contingent on an ability to understand their environment in a meaningful way.

Cockroaches can be classically conditioned, and they are insects with little neural bundles.

Not to say, once again, that sex with animals isn't freaking creepy and gross.

25Report
Mr Swede at 10 Aug 2009: 18:56

>>21
Also several corvid species have been similarly proven to be self aware.
Just throwing it up there, in case anyone was feeling too high and mighty what with being a mammal and all.

26Report
at 10 Aug 2009: 19:30

>>25
Trust me, i've argued for hundreds of hours with the high and mighty people you speak of. No matter what facts are presented they refuse to believe animals are self aware. They even refuse animals have feelings, compassion or any sense of intelligence whatsoever. These type of people will fight animal intelligence tooth and nail the same way a religious extremist will fight abortion or stem cell research.

The logic or benefits of the knowledge < their opinion

27Report
at 10 Aug 2009: 21:37

>>22
I would argue the average person is no better than the average animal in it's ability to be self aware, compassionate, loving and emotional. Just because we have philosophers doesn't mean the average person thinks on that kind of scale. In fact, the average person is usually content in eating, having sex and sleeping. Add in a little bit of music/movies/etc and that is it. I've been called everything from boring to elitist just for TRYING to have conversations deeper than a drop of water. The average person does not use their intelligence for any great purpose and most people seem content to act based purely on instinct/emotions.

If we were really as advanced as you claim(which we are PHYSICALLY) then we wouldn't constantly be warring, manipulative and destructive of our environment, our society and our culture. The average human is a little like a cheetah who refuses to run fast or a shark who refuses to eat meat. The physical ability is there but the desire to use it is nil thus putting us in a much less impressive position on the scale of life. We are still at the top of the food chain but just BARELY and we are a moment away from destroying ourselves.

If you want to be one of those average people who ignores scientific research then go right ahead. The facts keep pouring in and proving animals are more intelligent and aware than we previously thought. A smart person knows when to throw in the towel and let age old justifications for killing/torturing/abusing die.

28Report
at 10 Aug 2009: 22:07

4 here.

>>6
I did replace "animals" with "children" in my sentences.  Unfortunately, I don't understand what point you were trying to make, as some of the sentences are nonsensical:


- Children don't demand money. :: Um, my little brother gets VERY angry if he doesn't get his allowance

- Children don't care about fine dinners, movies, or any of that other expensive civilized "crap", they are easy to entertain. :: Try taking my little brother's expensive Playstation 3 away from him.  Ouch!

- Dealing with an children's in-laws is also easier. :: No child I know has in-laws.

- Children have longer tongues and ... :: wait, what?


I thought about the other stuff as you told me to, and quite frankly, it's disgusting to think about children in that way.  I don't understand why you even brought up children as we were discussing animals here.  Lol.



29Report
at 10 Aug 2009: 22:47

>>28
It's called a strawman argument. Children aren't comparable to animals. Child rape isn't comparable to animal rape/sex.

30Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 02:01

Yeah, Furry arguments :D

31Report
>> 9 at 11 Aug 2009: 02:29

>>28

The mental capacities of animals have often been compared to those of human children, hence the comparission. The level of consciousness also indicates similiarities.

I think everyone - except you - understood the purpose of my comment. But if you want to maintain your level of arguing it's fine with me, but I'm tired of that already.

General


I never doubtet an animals' ability to learn or feel or their skills. But very little species indicate a kind of self-awareness at all, not to mention a general understanding of things happening around them. Yes, there are some examples which just might be a coincidence but can of course taking as the one and only proof one needs for his argument. For any given example of a "self-aware animal" I could provide countless counterexamples.

But honestly, I don't want anymore. I hereby declare you winner of this argument, I lose. Screw your dogs as much as you like ;)

32Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 02:54

>>31
You didn't provide any counter-examples to the brand spanking new research proving certain species self-awareness. I guess you are giving up because you have no such examples. Nice try but I saw right through it.

Most of us weren't even arguing against you for the right to fuck animals. We were just pissed off at your close minded statements about animals as if you can somehow read their minds, know for a FACT they aren't self-aware while completely disregarding new evidence to show how advanced animal intelligence is in comparison to old research from the "animals are stoopid hurrr" days.

In fact you've ignored every example cited thus far and refused to prove those examples wrong. So yes, we are the winners of the argument by default.

33Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 10:20

Each species is made a certain way in order to mate with the opposite sex of their own species.  Humans are not meant to mate with other animals, no matter how much you want to sugar-coat it or put a spin on it.  Plain and simple.  That's probably why it's considered illegal in most civilized parts of the world.  Applying any kind of "logic" (and I use that term loosely here) to your argument is only done by yourself to further your side of the argument.

If you think it's totally okay to fuck an animal, do it in front of a cop and see what happens.  I mean, if it's okay, it shouldn't be a big deal, right?  Maybe you and the cop will take turns, or laugh about it over a beer at the pub.

Fucking animals is wrong, whether you accept that or not.  Maybe it's okay in that make-believe world in your head, but here in "reality land", it'll land your ass in jail.  Or worse.

34Report (sage)
at 11 Aug 2009: 15:28

Each species is made a certain way in order to mate with the opposite sex of their own species.  Humans are not meant to mate with members of the same sex, no matter how much you want to sugar-coat it or put a spin on it.  Plain and simple.  That's probably why it's considered illegal in many places in the world.  Applying any kind of "logic" (and I use that term loosely here) to your argument is only done by yourself to further your side of the argument.

If you think it's totally okay to fuck another person of the same sex, do it in front of a cop and see what happens.  I mean, if it's okay, it shouldn't be a big deal, right?  Maybe you and the cop will take turns, or laugh about it over a beer at the pub.

Fucking people of the same sex is wrong, whether you accept that or not.  Maybe it's okay in that make-believe world in your head, but here in "reality land", it'll get you tied up and beaten, then dragged five miles on a rope tied to a truck.

(Not that I disagree with you, just pointing out that your argument is absurd.  Whether something is legal or not frequently has nothing to do with whether it's moral or even whether it's popularly accepted.)

35Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 17:47

“That's probably why it's considered illegal in most civilized parts of the world.”

Really? As long as you are not doing it in public or violate against other laws, as far as I know it’s legal in:
- Some States of the US
- Belgium
- Cambodia
- Denmark
- Finland (made legal together with making homosexuality legal)
- Germany
- Hungary
- Mexico
- Norway (same as Finland)
- Sweden (same as Finland)
- Switzerland

Like homosexuality, it’s been practiced since mankind exists, there are even cave paintings that shows sexual intercourse with animals. Even animals can be homosexual or mate with other species.

So what i’m trying to say is, that (in my opinion) it is just another form of a sexual orientation.
And from what I read here I would say you all are talking about sodomists who having sex with animals just because they’re horny, but there are also zoophiles which treat there pets as equal partners and not just as sexual objects, they really love them. In those relationships it’s also possible that the animal starts with the sexual acts, not the human.

36Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 19:32

>>35

implying any of the countries listed and some backwater states of the US are civilized.


Sorry, had to.

37Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 20:24

>>35

It's nice to see how... dedicated you are when it comes to knowing where it is legal to fuck non-human animals.

"Like homosexuality, it’s been practiced since mankind exists..."

I doubt the same couldn't be said of rape and murder. "It's been going on for a really long time" or "animals do it!" aren't the most compelling arguements I've seen.

"And from what I read here I would say you all are talking about sodomists..."

Oooooh kay. So, did you book that flight to Mexico yet?

38Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 20:43

France too.

You know its cool if the french aren't doing it.

39Report
at 12 Aug 2009: 00:51

lol, france

40Report
at 13 Aug 2009: 01:59

>>34
i think fucking anybody infront of a cop is a bad idea

I wonder is there any place in the world that is predominantly gay, and they have mobs too, but all they would do is give you a make over and the only dragging going on would be what they're dressed in.

 oh yeah capital hill seattle

41Report
talking out of my foot at 14 Aug 2009: 00:28

>>40

you just gave me a really absurd thought.

Somebody scheduling a rally at a major intersection whith a whole group of people showing up and when the clock strikes a certain time, every starts takes off there clothes and starts fucking.

Cant you imagine how hard it would be for the cops to break that up?


>>34

"Fucking people of the same sex is wrong"

But on a more serious note would anybody care.

I used to but now i dont.

42Report (sage)
at 14 Aug 2009: 06:58

>>41

Not really that hard.  Cops show up, grab a few people who are too busy fucking to realize that a cop's about to grab them, and then handcuff them and pin them to the ground.  Everybody else runs away as soon as they realize that other people are getting handcuffed.

Also, I was wondering who the first person to take >>34 seriously would be.  Thanks.

43Report
at 14 Aug 2009: 15:44

I personally don't see how bestiality is wrong.  People say that the animals don't understand, while others say that they do.  Some say that their pets consent to them, while others dictate that animals can't consent, and equate them with children.

It all comes down to the "I don't like it because it's icky" argument, which is pure opinion.

If we need consent to have sex with animals, why don't we need consent to keep them as pets in our house, or maim their genitalia?

How is that different?

44Report
at 14 Aug 2009: 18:17

>>43
BECAUSE THAT ISN'T ICKY!

Remember: The law doesn't exist to proscibe morality, it exists to codify the already extant feelings of the people.

45Report
at 14 Aug 2009: 22:54

>>44
So you don't consider it disgusting and barbaric to inject animals with chemicals, then routinely maim them?

46Report
logic at 15 Aug 2009: 17:44

awsome as normal - first off mr hands was not the guy who died, mr hands was filmed several years before that intersting incident that lead to the poor fellows death (lesson if you are going to take something that large up the ass then be prepared for it and if you get a tear get it treated)
as for why? good lord feral sex --- the raw brutal aspect of being taken by something that could eat you or kill you and is not constrained by silly worries of "am I hurting her?".. enuf said.
mr hands is alive and well today.
and ... dammit how can people can be so stupid while solid evidence is being lain out to read that supports that animals are reasoning and capable of showing yes or no, of course most people will refuse to actually absorb something that dose not fit their small world view.
for the ones who insist that one can do anything to a properly trained animal ... I'd highly suggest you get you get a properly trained german sheppard and start brutalizing It..... in one argument one person wants to say you can do anything at all, then in another argument its posited that once you let them mount you they become so aggressive you have to have them put to sleep....
wait..... now, so which is it?   at least get your crap straight before forming opinions that inherently flawed.
have fun everyone.

47Report
at 15 Aug 2009: 21:35

>>37
His point wasn't that any of these things necessarily make it okay, just that arguments on the basis of it being some inherently wrong act that never occurs in nature and/or normal human society are outright silly.

Guys, please bear in mind, ignoring context and attacking the person rather than their position does not make for a strong argument; if anything, it makes it appear as if you realize that your argument is flawed and are trying to distract from it.  It's a logical fallacy known formally as ad hominem.

48Report
talking out of my foot. at 15 Aug 2009: 22:59

>>42

"Not really that hard."

Not unless its a lot of people like a one million man march.

"Also, I was wondering who the first person to take >>34 seriously would be."

I was thinking in the context of indifference.

49Report
The Entire State of Australia at 4 Dec 2009: 11:19

Boinkin' animals is bad, mmkay.

50Report (sage)
Mr Swede at 4 Dec 2009: 17:44

>>49
That seemed entirely necessary.

51Report
at 4 Dec 2009: 23:18

I like how OP successfully identifies bestiality as bad, but ends up creating a "How2petfuck" thread in the process.

52Report
at 6 Dec 2009: 12:27

I think one should leave those petfuckers alone.

As long as I have animals killed to eat them or wear their skin and as long as all the weird stuff in the animal breeding is going on (I don't want to know exactly, so I can enjoy my steak tomorrow, but I know meat for 1.00 USD a pound including S/H can't have had a nice life). Well - I fail to see how I can claim my moral grounds higher than someone elses who happens to have sex with his dog.
I mean at least he is caring for it or... I guess just as it is under us humans there are bad and good husbands. So leave the good ones alone, I figure they wouldn't do harm to their loved ones. And the bad ones are like bad pet owners who don't screw their pets - they violate general animal protection laws.

53Report
at 6 Dec 2009: 20:06

Have we all forgotten the topic of the thread?

54Report
at 6 Dec 2009: 21:55

And this is why people don't like furries.

55Report
at 7 Dec 2009: 15:39

>>34
Dear Jesus, someone failed debate club a lot. Take terrible arguments elsewhere.

56Report
at 8 Dec 2009: 01:50

>>55

He was mocking someone else' argument.

57Report
The Entire State of Australia at 8 Dec 2009: 23:53

>>50

Yes.

58Report
at 11 Dec 2009: 02:12

>>21

The issue is several groups of people STILL feel that way because they don't want animals being anywhere near the level of the oh so great "humans" which are just smart fucking mammals(another point people contest when blinded with religion)


I was almost tricked into believing you were an intelligent person, but you corrected me.

Also I would point out that the mirror test is flawed because many animals are not sight-based. Most of them put a lot more emphasis on scent and may not even have very good eye-sight.

59Report
at 11 Dec 2009: 14:02

>>58
Argue that all you want. The animals involved in the mirror test had the level of eyesight required to properly identify themselves. Yes, the test is not perfect but the fact certain animals lack good eyesight doesn't make it any less valid in proving they recognize themselves in the mirror.

Also, why am I suddenly not intelligent? It's a well known fact that people consider themselves above animals. Are we in terms of intelligence, history and even in some physical (stamina) attributes? Yes. But that doesn't excuse the large portion of religious believers from saying animals have no souls or that animals were created as lesser beings by God thus it is our right to kill or mutilate them however we wish.

There are opinions floating around not based on scientific data and based purely on speculation or "convenience". We don't want to think animals are capable of feeling because then we'd feel bad killing them (see the lobster put into boiling water argument where some claim lobsters are incapable of feeling pain which is disproved by those who actually bothered to TEST if lobsters felt pain as opposed to ASSUMING)

Also, why are you trying to tear down my argument months later? Hoping I won't return?

60Report
at 11 Dec 2009: 16:52

>>59

To quote a line from "Tool":  Life feeds on life.

Everything, in one way or another, eats everything else.  From the smallest microbe to the largest mammal, this is a continual occurrence.  Since we can't exist on a diet of microbes, we must then kill larger creatures which we use for food.

Duh.

61Report
at 11 Dec 2009: 19:36

>>60
Translation: I'm going to disregard several key points of your argument and state the obvious about something you can't disagree with

When did I ever say we shouldn't eat meat? I simply said that we justify a lot of abuse and genocide in the name of entertainment (hunting, dog fighting, etc) and food (factory farms with abyssmal conditions and horribly inefficent slaughtering methods). We justify this behaviour by pretending animals are so far beneath us that they can't possibly think, feel or that they don't have souls.

Time and time again science disproves this mentality with facts showing animals and even insects have the ability to do things we didn't think they were capable of before. This scientific data would not exist if scientists with mentalities like myself didn't want to know the FACTS. All I am saying is justifying inefficient and unnecessarily brutal behavior in both hunting and food industries shouldn't be tolerated based on outdated information regarding animals ability to think and feel.

62Report
chucky and the chubbery chodes at 12 Dec 2009: 19:55

>>61
One- dog fighting is illegal in the U.S..
Two- Hunting is a good source of food, hell where else am i going to get 500 pounds of elk that's going to last me the whole year. Its also a good money saver. (and friggin tasty!)
Three- hunters give alot to wildlife preservation, just look at the rocky mountain elk foundation.

63Report
SomeGuy at 14 Dec 2009: 22:11

>>62

1. Remember the response to Michael Vick? "Ah man, three years? Isn't that overkill? They were just DOGS..."

2. He was probably referring to people that just go hunting for the fuck of it. And people hunt wolves and shit too. They tend not to eat those.

3. Don't lump wildlife preservation in with morality in the treatment of animals. One has more to do with "preserving natural beauty" and all that jazz- you know, keeping wildlife and shit around for OUR amusement, while the other is more specific about the feelings of animals on an individual level.

64Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

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.
Manage