bestiality

[Night-1991]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

I disagree, it has everything to do with beastiality. If you'd read it, you'd understand... I can't make it any simpler.

It doesn't.. I've read it and it simply sounds like he's ranting.

But forget it. I'm done with this thread just like the PS3 or Xbox 360 thread.

[Jacques]

Originally Posted by RiskyVenture

I think you need to read my post again. I didn't ask if you're implying that it's unnatural. I asked if you're implying that it's wrong, because it's unnatural?

As for pedophilia. Like anyone in the western society I've been raised to feel a strong contempt towards pedophilia and even if studies magically showed that it's actually beneficial I'd still feel that it is wrong. BUT and that's a huge but, I wouldn't be able to provide any evidence as to why it's wrong as my feeling that it's wrong would be rooted in indoctrination and not rationality.

A dog is perfectly able to consent. The question is whether it's raised to consent and if it's right to raise dogs to be submissive. A topic that doesn't have any to do specifically with bestiality, but raising dogs in general.

You did, I assumed by my answer you would see that yes i'm obviously saying one of the reasons it is wrong because it is unnatural.

So you conceed that regarding pedophilia you think it is wrong even if there isn't obvious harm involved, and yet you don't apply the same thing to bestiality.

As for evidence of it being wrong- upbringing (what you call indoctrination) and rationality are not mutally exclusive, evolutionary and social principles are evidence that behaviours should or should not be acceptable/ allowed- your idea of harm making things wrong has been learned from your previous experiences and education the same as all principles are developed. This is why you cannot base any system of right or wrong on harm along- you have to also consider rights- and balance them for all in a society. The right for people who want to to have sex with animals or children has to be balanced with the child or animal's right to be free from abuse and to live life as normally and free from harm as possible.

A dog can be trained follow orders or respond to certain actions in certain ways, but that is nothing like consent. If someone puts dog food on their genitals an animal which knows it is food will lick it off, but will not consent to sexual activity as for the animal cannot understand that it is a sexual activity. Just because an animal (or person, this applies equally) submits to sexual activty does not mean they consent to it- the point is that animals are unable to reason as humans can, and just because an animal doesn't show discomfort or run away cannot mean they consent to the activity happening.

As to your last point- the fact that you can raise an animal to be submissive is exactly why bestiality cannot be acceptable- humans are in complete control of how an animal learns and how they are raised, therefore to raise them with the purpose in mind of having sex with is clearly wrong- just as a parent who raises a child to control them for the purposes of sex is also wrong- domesticated animals are not free to make their own choices, they rely on owners and therefore cannot be said to have independence and free will- therefore need protection from humans from those who would seek to use them for sexual gratification.

[greatsayaman]

Originally Posted by Night-1991

It doesn't.. I've read it and it simply sounds like he's ranting.

But forget it. I'm done with this thread just like the PS3 or Xbox 360 thread.

The fact that society has changed to make us cowards doesn't mean that animals will simply submit to rape. That's the point.

[Night-1991]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

The fact that society has changed to make us cowards doesn't mean that animals will simply submit to rape. That's the point.

Yes. But the thread didn't have to turn into a huge debate. That point could of been said long before now.

[greatsayaman]

Originally Posted by Night-1991

Yes. But the thread didn't have to turn into a huge debate. That point could of been said long before now.

... IT WAS SAID LONG BEFORE NOW!
I said it on page 2, I believe. One of the earliest pages, anyway.
But everyone ignored me. =3

[Night-1991]

Originally Posted by greatsayaman

... IT WAS SAID LONG BEFORE NOW!
I said it on page 2, I believe. One of the earliest pages, anyway.
But everyone ignored me. =3

Think it was because of someone else, heh, who was trying to write an essay. I believe you. But i doubt that person does.

[BettyBoop]

Originally Posted by RiskyVenture

While I'm not a zoophile or own any animals for that matter, I believe all people are entitled to do what they want as long as they don't cause harm.

Now, does anyone here have an actual argument as to why it's wrong or are you all just looking to fit into this dysfunctional group by uniting in hate against something you probably couldn't care less about?

Shit, if anyone can actually provide a rational thought-out argument as to why it's wrong, you can consider my arrogant ass your property, how's that?

Till then I call hypocrisy and suggest you all consider if that's the kind of open-mindedness you expect from people who don't share your fetishes?

The question was what you though of it, that's what I put. It isn't why is it wrong. He's asking for your opinion, you don't need to have an argument. And who says everyone has fetishes?

[RiskyVenture]

Originally Posted by Jacques

You did, I assumed by my answer you would see that yes i'm obviously saying one of the reasons it is wrong because it is unnatural.

I did assume so, but I still wanted you to verify the assumption. It's an old habit and I do it to avoid being accused of throwing false accusations.

Personally I don't think that some is wrong because it's unnatural. I love electronica and often I'm told it's wrong because it's unnatural, when parents want peace they tell kids to go outside, because playing video games is unnatural, most people would think what the users here are into is wrong, because it's unnatural.

Fact is, we live in a world where everything is unnatural. TVs, cars, computers, cellphones, debates, philosophy, research, science, clothes, make up, this entire Internet debate and so on is all unnatural.

I've heard the unnatural-equals-wrong equation countless times before, but always in a religious context. I honestly did not expect to hear it on a website that deals with dares of this caliber.

Originally Posted by Jacques

So you conceed that regarding pedophilia you think it is wrong even if there isn't obvious harm involved, and yet you don't apply the same thing to bestiality.

Try not to twist it. I deliberately said "feel" and not think. There is a world of difference. If you allow feelings to be your moral compass and justification you're nothing, but a sociopath.

You might feel like fucking some tease, but you can't use your feelings to justify raping her.

Personally I would never allow feelings to overrule rational thinking. That's not to say I'm above manipulation, but if my feelings went against my intellect, I'd trust my intellect.

As for the comparison between bestiality and pedophilia or incest. It's invalid. The reason that the last two are wrong is the harm it causes the child. Prove that bestiality is harmful to animals or humans and I will agree it's wrong.



Maybe it's time this turned into an actual debate and we got a very important prerequisite settled: What is the goal of life? To please your God? To reproduce? To live like they did in the 50's? To populate foreign planets? To be happy? For all to be happy? Ultimately, how well an action accomplishes the respective goal is what determines how right it is.

[DollFaced]

Whilst there are many posts here that I agree with on both sides of the argument I do have one thing to say, true story...no bullshit.

At the college I go to there was a boy who just so happened to have been taken into care. The lady who was fostering him owned dogs. Big story I can't be bothered to tell, but basically he'd been fucking the dogs. Evidence was provided and he was caught out because the of the fact thats the dogs showed OBVIOUS SIGNS OF DISTRESS when around him.

If you wanna check the validity of my story I would post a link but I don't wanna get in trouble so type into google "henley dog boy" the first link to the sun newspaper should come up (I know it's a tabloid but the basics are there and are true)...read at your own will.

Make your own assumptions from this story but I personally think that whilst animals do not regard sex as holding the same morality in the way humans do, rape in the animal kingdom does happen. Why else would male peacocks flaunt their beautiful tails other than to attract a willing mate to procreate with?! Desperate males will force themselves on females if need be (trust me, I've seen it happen with ducks lol). Ask yourself...if one animal can rape (in the broadest sense of the term - legalese and all) another of the same species, a member of one species can rape a member of another species surely?!

All that said....if people wanna put stuff on their genitalia and have a dog lick it off, who cares?! The dog certainly doesn't.

[RiskyVenture]

The story about the boy is horrible and I think he should be banned from being alone with animals again.

What strikes me is that he was found guilty in two acts of bestiality, but no count of animal cruelty. Is bestiality equal to animal cruelty in England?

[Night-1991]

Originally Posted by RiskyVenture

The story about the boy is horrible and I think he should be banned from being alone with animals again.

What strikes me is that he was found guilty in two acts of bestiality, but no count of animal cruelty. Is bestiality equal to animal cruelty in England?

Yes. In the UK it's regarded as such.

[DollFaced]

Well, I'm gunna let you into a little secret here....I'm not an in-house expert on beastiality! Shocker!

But think about it, animal cruelty and beastiality are both crimes in themselves. Just like murder versus manslaughter (I know that's a shit example but you get the idea befrore you suddenly pick apart my example) - they both have the smae outcome!

[RiskyVenture]

Thanks. Just had to Google "cruelty" to be sure that I didn't mistake it for something else.

"a cruel act; a deliberate infliction of pain and suffering"

It's sad that some girl celebrating her dog's birthday with cake and a blowjob would be punished as were she some psychopath who deliberately inflicted pain on animals.

If anything is wrong, it's punishing someone for being cruel when you know they're being compassionate.

[DollFaced]

Yes, but you understand my point from my first post though right?!

I think this is an area that isn't definitively right or wrong...and therefore cannot be judged as such. Opinion is obviously welcome but just cos you say it is right or you say it is wrong doesn't necessarily make it so.

Yes?!

[Jacques]

Personally I don't think that some is wrong because it's unnatural. I love electronica and often I'm told it's wrong because it's unnatural, when parents want peace they tell kids to go outside, because playing video games is unnatural, most people would think what the users here are into is wrong, because it's unnatural.

Fact is, we live in a world where everything is unnatural. TVs, cars, computers, cellphones, debates, philosophy, research, science, clothes, make up, this entire Internet debate and so on is all unnatural.

I've heard the unnatural-equals-wrong equation countless times before, but always in a religious context. I honestly did not expect to hear it on a website that deals with dares of this caliber.

If you read what I wrote in relation to unnatural, you should see that my meaning of unnatural was not anything like the meaning you have given the word- when I say unnatural I did not and do not mean anything artifically created, I meant a behaviour which is in contradiction to basic evolutionary principles- not morals, but fundamental instincts common to all species- hence my example of lions not fucking their prey. My usage had nothing to do with technology or anything like that. It is an evolutionary fact that animals mate within their own 'species' so dogs and horses do not mate, nor do sharks and whales- the concept of humans having sex with anything other than humans is therefore in my view something which goes against this biological urge shared by all species and is therefore unnatural.

Try not to twist it. I deliberately said "feel" and not think. There is a world of difference. If you allow feelings to be your moral compass and justification you're nothing, but a sociopath.

You might feel like fucking some tease, but you can't use your feelings to justify raping her.

In the context of what you wrote I disagree, the difference between 'think' and 'feel' is academic- each is a manner by which you expressed your opinion regarding pedophilia, you said you feel it is wrong- you cannot at the same time think it is right, in your example- you appear to believe there is some sort of clear cut distinction between fact and opinion, when of course each influences the other. I would also point out that rational thinking does not necessarily lead to the conclusion you have drawn- you are thinking in a certain framework which is underpinned by your personal set of values and principles.

As for the comparison between bestiality and pedophilia or incest. It's invalid. The reason that the last two are wrong is the harm it causes the child. Prove that bestiality is harmful to animals or humans and I will agree it's wrong.

It is not an invalid comparison- your argument is based on whether harm is caused or not, not mine, my argument is based on the rights of those more vulnerable than the majority (animals and children) and based on their not being able to consent, and on the activities being against common biological principles- another one of which incidentally is that animals do not mate until of sexual maturity, so relates to pedophilia. I mentioned incest and pedophilia in relation to one person raising and controlling the animal/child, and the lack of free will or independence negating any idea of being able to consent, so your trying to distinguish is itself invalid.

As a side point- my entire argument is that these activities are wrong whether or not the cause harm- a human is using an animal for their own sexual gratification, and it cannot for the reasons I have already stated be consensual on the part of the animal, whether or not they submit to it, therefore it is abusing the animal and wrong.

Maybe it's time this turned into an actual debate and we got a very important prerequisite settled: What is the goal of life? To please your God? To reproduce? To live like they did in the 50's? To populate foreign planets? To be happy? For all to be happy? Ultimately, how well an action accomplishes the respective goal is what determines how right it is

That is not an important prerequisite, since there is no possible right answer, and even if there were it absurd to say that anything that accomplishes it is automatically right- Hitler's goal was to create an Aryan super race, but even if the holocaust and second world war had accomplished that it would still objectively not be 'right'. You may as well ask what the animal's goal in life is whilst you're at it! If you want to start a debate on goals of life start a new thread, this one is about opinions on bestiality.