Immahnoob said: Burier-Man said: Let's go back to the lolicon and incest, I believe that is a discussion that has more credibility than this. GreyKitty said: I agree. Humans at least can say if they want it or not. Raping animals should be illegal in any country. Even Siscon's treads made more sense than this. Can any of you actually bring valid argumentation for this...? And "raping" animals? Really? I don't raping my dog! its my dog raping me! who could have thought... |
| The "consent" argument can't work. 1) Because we kill them without "consent", we keep them as pets without "consent", etc. 2) Even if "consent" would be valid in this case, just because animals can't give "verbal consent" that does not mean there is no other type of "consent" that they could give. 3) There's no harm inflicted most of the times. 4) Other animals are inferior to us, there's no real disadvantage in using them as we please unless it's not a personal use but a "mass use". Which is doubtful to ever happen. (you can also say that we should have "rights", not animals, after all, it's we that created that notion of "rights") And just to be clear, I'm taking several stances which can all be valid by themselves (and even in groups, but that's for you to think through), so I don't have to explain everything over and over again on how contradictions work. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| fucking a horse would probably kill you |
an egomaniac and a fool |
| my dog jumps on me every morning before I have a chance to wake up and fucks me! he holds me so hard that I couldn't move even if I'd want to! |
Immahnoob said: The "consent" argument can't work. 1) Because we kill them without "consent", we keep them as pets without "consent", etc. Just as animals are carnivorous, we can kill them in the most humane way possible 2) Even if "consent" would be valid in this case, just because animals can't give "verbal consent" that does not mean there is no other type of "consent" that they could give. Molesting an animal and tricking it into a sexual response isn't it consenting to have sex with a human. And yes it is rape. Any penetrative sex with an animal is. I'm indifferent about a dog fucking a person for example. 3) There's no harm inflicted most of the times. If zoophillia is legal then there's no way to stop animal brothels. How could there be? The reality is that with zoophillia legal brothels will be on the increase rapidly, further leading to animals harm. An anonymous retreat for married men and women to act out their fantasies is a money maker after all. 4) Other animals are inferior to us, there's no real disadvantage in using them as we please unless it's not a personal use but a "mass use". Which is doubtful to ever happen. (you can also say that we should have "rights", not animals, after all, it's we that created that notion of "rights") Same as above really. It amazes me that you think people will be careful and only have sex with the animal if it doesn't resist. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| And people wonder why I have lost all hope for humans |
 See more on Know Your Meme |
DiabloCalling said: And people wonder why I have lost all hope for humans me too! |
| Ahahahaha |
DiabloCalling said: And people wonder why I have lost all hope for humans Well, I don't. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
NuclearWarhead said: It's not rape if you bark surprise. Then it's just surprise sex between two species. |
See more on Know Your Meme |
| @Masked_Mantis None of your arguments are even valid, instead their all emotional responses based on faulty logic, Masked_Mantis, how can you always fall for this? You want them to have rights only when the situation fits your page. This is just too easy. 1) And this really has nothing to do with anything, we're not asking for their "consent" in any other case. 2) Overall faulty logic, reverse bestiality and so-called "rape" is okay (lol). Still haven't answered the "verbal" argument. You're forcing "morality" which is a human construct on other animals. 3) Emotional response again, zoophilia is a niche, thus your "what if" is highly improbable, and even so, this is tied to 2) somewhat, and can also be tied to 4). 4) Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what I said. Next time try to argue properly, we've already went over this before, I thought you understood that you can't argue this subject at all. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: @Masked_Mantis None of your arguments are even valid, instead their all emotional responses based on faulty logic, Masked_Mantis, how can you always fall for this? You want them to have rights only when the situation fits your page. This is just too easy. 1) And this really has nothing to do with anything, we're not asking for their "consent" in any other case. 2) Overall faulty logic, reverse bestiality and so-called "rape" is okay (lol). Still haven't answered the "verbal" argument. You're forcing "morality" which is a human construct on other animals. 3) Emotional response again, zoophilia is a niche, thus your "what if" is highly improbable, and even so, this is tied to 2) somewhat, and can also be tied to 4). 4) Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with what I said. Next time try to argue properly, we've already went over this before, I thought you understood that you can't argue this subject at all. nobody even wants to argue with sick zoofile dogfucker like you. |
| Which puppy were you NuclearWarhead? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| when you can't do it with a girl (not even a whore) dogs is the only option for ones like you. |
Tavaa said: Your way of thinking, is messed up. Now don't get me started on what "messed up thinking" is. It's basically, "You're not thinking like the majority.", which I can simply tie up with "argument from popularity". I could even go into more details and make this fun but you'll probably just be like "No, I'm far too good for this." and run away. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Logically noob is making a point. Morally, that's some fucked up shit yo. |
Immahnoob said: @Masked_Mantis None of your arguments are even valid, instead their all emotional responses based on faulty logic, Masked_Mantis, how can you always fall for this? You want them to have rights only when the situation fits your page. This is just too easy. No lol. You're just avoiding answering the animal brothel comments and the reality of what happens with zoophillia. You live in a fantasy world and provide no logic yourself. 1) And this really has nothing to do with anything, we're not asking for their "consent" in any other case. So? The arguement that we eat them is stupid 2) Overall faulty logic, reverse bestiality and so-called "rape" is okay (lol). A dog penetrating a person harms the dog? No. And it's not so called rape if the dog is the one fucking obviously. How do you get raped by an animal unless you were wanking it off or triggering its sexual instincts? Still haven't answered the "verbal" argument. You're forcing "morality" which is a human construct on other animals. Not at all. You're arguements provide the perfect reason to introduce animal brothels around the world. It's not difficult to provide evidence of them being mistreated here, since that is why we're arguing in the first place. You saying it rarely causes any harm is a contradiction based on reality and what would really happen if zoophillia was legal. 3) Emotional response again, zoophilia is a niche, thus your "what if" is highly improbable. How? Otherwise you'd address these comments. You saying it hardly causes harm is shit and you shouldn't use that arguement. If you are for zoophillia then how can you condemn an animal brothel? Next time try to argue properly, we've already went over this before, I thought you understood that you can't argue this subject at all You've provided nothing so it's easy to argue anything you have. You just don't listen. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| @Masked_Mantis 1) It's not, you're proclaiming they should have the notion of "consent" forced upon them, if "eating them" is not an argument against "no consent, thus animal rape" then "no consent, thus animal rape" can't be an argument either, as you're nullifying the whole "consent" in specific cases because of retarded emotional responses, continue being illogical, you'll probably win an argument on religion one day. 2) So the animal has more rights than a human, right? By your logic (which is faulty, thank Me to that) that is. You're implying animals are incapable of "rape" yet you can rape them? Can we please see more examples of this logic? Thank you, it was a good laugh. Animal brothels are irrelevant to this whole thing though, as they're highly improbable considering that zoophilia is a niche, that's why I said "little harm" not "no harm" (which can also be taken in several other stances). And even so, even if we introduce animal brothels, that does not mean they necessarily produce "harm". You're also implying that brothels can't be regulated. You're also implying that it's a necessity that the "harm" done to the animals is actually a "harm" done to man. Which is why I said this can also be tied to 4). 3) Look at 2). 4) You didn't answer to this at all, or other points of mine. No, actually, I'm providing logic, you're providing emotional responses. Which are fallacious in our case. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Your claim was you don't see why it's illegal then go to say it rarely causes harm. Yet you're arguement is always we eat them therefore we should be able to do what we want to them. Your reasonings are always illogical when arguing that it isn't cruelty. People would have brought up your arguements in real life if they were half decent. Because people do "rape" them (brothels). You say there's no harm based on nothing at all. That's just your opinion. But all animal cruelty cases arise when the owner keeps forcing the animal into sex. Again if you think people let their pet decide behind closed doors and will back off if they don't want it, then you're very gullible. It's easy to be cruel to an animal or child because they can't speak out against these things. You just say it doesn't happen. Animal brothels don't necessarily produce harm, yet you know full well they do. The point being by your incredibly persuasive arguements it wouldn't matter even if they were treated poorly. What law are they breaking? It is a niche but it would still make going about zoophillia easier. So even if you had the best intentions on not harming the animal, you still help fund brothels. Point being you provide no cases in brothels or zoophillia not harming animals, whilst arguing that it's not cruel. And you wonder why nobody ever agrees with you lol. You provide no logic and just repeat factless comments, so goodbye. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: You're jumping points here. As I said, there are several stances, you're picking only on one, so even if you debunk one of the other stances you're still in the wrong. Because all the others are still on their feet. Whatever, it's not like it's not easy to disprove you anyway.Your claim was you don't see why it's illegal then go to say it rarely causes harm. Yet you're arguement is always we eat them therefore we should be able to do what we want to them. Your reasonings are always illogical when arguing that it isn't cruelty. People would have brought up your arguements in real life if they were half decent. Because people do "rape" them (brothels). You say there's no harm based on nothing at all. That's just your opinion. But all animal cruelty cases arise when the owner keeps forcing the animal into sex. Again if you think people let their pet decide behind closed doors and will back off if they don't want it, then you're very gullible. It's easy to be cruel to an animal or child because they can't speak out against these things. You just say it doesn't happen. Animal brothels don't necessarily produce harm, yet you know full well they do. The point being by your incredibly persuasive arguements it wouldn't matter even if they were treated poorly. What law are they breaking? It is a niche but it would still make going about zoophillia easier. So even if you had the best intentions on not harming the animal, you still help fund brothels. Point being you provide no cases in brothels or zoophillia not harming animals, whilst arguing that it's not cruel. And you wonder why nobody ever agrees with you lol. You provide no logic and just repeat factless comments, so goodbye. First of all, you're also using only one of my examples, I'll clarify that "etc" for more than two examples. We experiment on them, we eat them, we make them our pets, we "force" them to breed between themselves, we overall degrade them, there's no consent asked in any of these, except for the sexual act, which most are vehement on keeping for whatever illogical reason. We are being cruel to them and yet we're justifying it in ways that we wouldn't justify on humans, that's hypocrisy, again. It's just fitting the law for your own agenda. It's illogical Second, your argument always starts from a faulty conclusion, that of thinking this law or the law in general is always right, basically, you're not even arguing here. Third, you're being fallacious again, "people would have bought up your arguments in real life if they were half decent.". Is this you on logic? HHHHUUURRR DURRRR RHUHHURRRHH. I don't know, I think I'm basing it on how there actually is interspecies sexual interaction, next. It's also funny how you believe animals see sex just like we do, it's also funny how you think that an animal will not react at all when it's harmed. And comparing children to animals is retarded, we don't use children for meat, at least not yet, I think there are a few people that would regard that as a good option. I thought we were talking about animals that are already of "age", I don't see how using children as an analogy is even remotely ok. Let me paraphrase that first phrase: "I'm right, you know it, thus I'm right.". That's because it's true, they're already mistreated, as long as that doesn't change, arguing over how sex is harmful is way too far-fetched... As I said, with legality comes regulations, animals can be trained, and because zoophilia is a niche, you won't see enough brothels opening to be able to call them "harmful" (which they're not necessarily). This logic is also faulty, because it's impossible for nothing "wrong" to happen. Similar analogies: "Women being pregnant should be illegal, it can harm the mother, thus it should be illegal.", "Sex as a whole should be illegal, harm can easily be produced, thus it should be illegal.", "Cars should be illegal, accidents can happen, thus they should be illegal.", "Corners should be illegal, I sometimes smash my foot into them, they do me harm, thus they should be illegal.". This last part fucks logic hard in the ass. I'd sing you a song seriously, but I can't find anything that can fit you. Goodbye to you too, try again next time, the booth is always open. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Masked_Mantis said: Your claim was you don't see why it's illegal then go to say it rarely causes harm. Yet you're arguement is always we eat them therefore we should be able to do what we want to them. Your reasonings are always illogical when arguing that it isn't cruelty. People would have brought up your arguements in real life if they were half decent. Because people do "rape" them (brothels). You say there's no harm based on nothing at all. That's just your opinion. But all animal cruelty cases arise when the owner keeps forcing the animal into sex. Again if you think people let their pet decide behind closed doors and will back off if they don't want it, then you're very gullible. It's easy to be cruel to an animal or child because they can't speak out against these things. You just say it doesn't happen. Animal brothels don't necessarily produce harm, yet you know full well they do. The point being by your incredibly persuasive arguements it wouldn't matter even if they were treated poorly. What law are they breaking? It is a niche but it would still make going about zoophillia easier. So even if you had the best intentions on not harming the animal, you still help fund brothels. Point being you provide no cases in brothels or zoophillia not harming animals, whilst arguing that it's not cruel. And you wonder why nobody ever agrees with you lol. You provide no logic and just repeat factless comments, so goodbye. I can't believe you are making me do this, defend such a god-awful thing, but Immahnoob is right if you approach this from a logical perspective. Your arguments are pretty easy to pick apart. You say having animal brothels will lead to abuse, but excessive smoking leads to lung cancer, but that is not illegal is it? Just because a practice can be abused doesn't give ground to ban it. And that is precisely why trying to argue everything from a 'logical' perspective leads to moral decay, you reprobates!!! |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| Wut? AsianKungFu said: Ummm...ew My reaction ^ |
b1GZZ said: Nice post.Wut? AsianKungFu said: Ummm...ew My reaction ^ |
 You've come a long way, baby. |
| idk wat this is but it sounds fishy |
 |
| damn had to google that shit u lot some sick bastards for even thinking bout that shit. U lot need god, jesus, buddha and a lot of holy water. |
 |
RedRoseFring said: And that is precisely why trying to argue everything from a 'logical' perspective leads to moral decay, you reprobates!!! "Moral decay", that "decay" part can easily just be a "transformation", and that "transformation" can easily be "positive". That also depends from what point of view you're arguing. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| Interesting moral debate, if you can call it that. Any who, after doing some research, apparently most countries don't ban it or the filming of it, but they do ban the distribution of it through any medium. As for the whole consent thing everyone was going on about, eh, I'd have to lean towards the side of it doesn't really matter, because at the end of the day, how many animals do we kill, forcibly impregnate, milk, and steal their children for slaughter on a daily basis? Should it be illegal? Maybe it's a little more than a little weird, but honestly as long as the animal isn't getting hurt, then why not I suppose. Would I do it? Hell no. |
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" - Winston Churchill |
More topics from this board
» Whats you favorite Mr. Olympia ( 1 2 )ssvmdh - Jun 6 |
56 |
by ssvmdh
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Do the well-known stereotypes associated with people from your country actually apply to you? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Oct 8 |
94 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» if you were to given a chance to become either a magical girl or kamen riderYmir_The_Viking - 5 hours ago |
9 |
by Nette
»»
44 minutes ago |
|
» What is your contribution to society?Morena - Jan 24, 2013 |
49 |
by ymiriii
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
» What do you think of men who act like it's manly to disregard their health or well-being?fleurbleue - 3 hours ago |
10 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
1 hour ago |