This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Tommyjw
Urgh, completely misunderstand everything, again.
The point is that there are more harms than benefits. Being gay does not harm society. Explain to me how being gay harms society in any way.
This 'long list of things' id a ridiculous argument, again. All these things you will put across have more benefits, thus they are 'ok'. This is obvious and yet you continue to bring up this ridiculous point.
And your really trying to say an animal has the intelligence to know what a relationship is, what real love is? My god.. please ... your embarassing
The point is that there are more harms than benefits. Being gay does not harm society. Explain to me how being gay harms society in any way.
This 'long list of things' id a ridiculous argument, again. All these things you will put across have more benefits, thus they are 'ok'. This is obvious and yet you continue to bring up this ridiculous point.
And your really trying to say an animal has the intelligence to know what a relationship is, what real love is? My god.. please ... your embarassing
How does zoophilia harm society?
No I'm not, hence the "..." around the terms. I meant as close to them as they realistically can.
Someone else mentioned animals can't give informed consent - which is very true. But they never will be able to.
Since when has animals consent become important anyway? To my knowledge, no animal has given informed consent to be enslaved or slaughtered.
Original post by Mr Disco
Sexual intercourse with an animal is liable, I would argue, to cause pain and suffering.
How so?
And, is it only intercourse that will cause pain and suffering, or other "sexual" activities with animals as well?
Original post by callum9999
How does zoophilia harm society?
No I'm not, hence the "..." around the terms. I meant as close to them as they realistically can.
Someone else mentioned animals can't give informed consent - which is very true. But they never will be able to.
Since when has animals consent become important anyway? To my knowledge, no animal has given informed consent to be enslaved or slaughtered.
No I'm not, hence the "..." around the terms. I meant as close to them as they realistically can.
Someone else mentioned animals can't give informed consent - which is very true. But they never will be able to.
Since when has animals consent become important anyway? To my knowledge, no animal has given informed consent to be enslaved or slaughtered.
I have said it before, i will say it again.
Zoophilia has been known to involve the abuse of the animal, i have stated this before with reference to a researcher who stated this. Not all 'zoophiles' abust the animal, but it happens. Abusing animals is harmful to society, is it not?
Original post by Mr Disco
No, I do not believe that animals can "consent".
We have a duty as moral agents to ensure that no animal is subject to needless pain and suffering.
Sexual intercourse with an animal is liable, I would argue, to cause pain and suffering.
We have a duty as moral agents to ensure that no animal is subject to needless pain and suffering.
Sexual intercourse with an animal is liable, I would argue, to cause pain and suffering.
They don't consent because sex isn't and never will be all that serious for them. It's not about ethics or morals, building a relationship, peer-pressure, regrets, being drunk, crying rape, looking cool... it's just an urge for sex, released. And then they move on.
Do animals consent to being taken for walkies? Do horses consent to being ridden? Does the Andrex puppy consent to advertising toilet paper? Do chihuahuas consent to being dressed in designer jackets, having their nails polished and being carried about in the handbags of celebrities? Does Sniffles the rabbit consent to being kept in a hutch and let out only when the kiddies want to play with it and give it exercise at a time that suits them? Does that lion consent to being kept in a zoo for all its life?
What evidence is there that it causes the animal pain and suffering? What about if the animal initiates sex or returns for sex? What about an animal that is strong than humans and could easily kick the human if it was in discomfort (e.g. mounting a horse from behind)? Is the discomfort suffered by the animal worse than death?
Original post by Tommyjw
I have said it before, i will say it again.
Zoophilia has been known to involve the abuse of the animal, i have stated this before with reference to a researcher who stated this. Not all 'zoophiles' abust the animal, but it happens. Abusing animals is harmful to society, is it not?
Zoophilia has been known to involve the abuse of the animal, i have stated this before with reference to a researcher who stated this. Not all 'zoophiles' abust the animal, but it happens. Abusing animals is harmful to society, is it not?
He asked how zoophilia harms society, this doesn't answer that. The crux is the weak link between zoophilia and animal abuse, much like how gays were considered rapists and dangerous not so long ago. Can there not just be acceptable zoophilia, and unacceptable abusive forms? Just like we have for every other kind of sexual practice?
It "having been known to involve" animal abuse is hardly a valid reason alone. Straight human sex "has been known to involve the abuse of women. Not all "heterosexuals" abuse women, but it happens. Abusing women is harmful to society, is it not?"
Original post by Tommyjw
I have said it before, i will say it again.
Zoophilia has been known to involve the abuse of the animal, i have stated this before with reference to a researcher who stated this. Not all 'zoophiles' abust the animal, but it happens. Abusing animals is harmful to society, is it not?
Zoophilia has been known to involve the abuse of the animal, i have stated this before with reference to a researcher who stated this. Not all 'zoophiles' abust the animal, but it happens. Abusing animals is harmful to society, is it not?
So do some pet owners and farm animal keepers.
Normally you just leave the people to do what they want to animals unless someone happens to get wind of abuse and alerts the authorities. You don't just make it illegal because it's ikky.Original post by EskimoJo
They don't consent because sex isn't and never will be all that serious for them. It's not about ethics or morals, building a relationship, peer-pressure, regrets, being drunk, crying rape, looking cool... it's just an urge for sex, released. And then they move on.
Do animals consent to being taken for walkies? Do horses consent to being ridden? Does the Andrex puppy consent to advertising toilet paper? Do chihuahuas consent to being dressed in designer jackets, having their nails polished and being carried about in the handbags of celebrities? Does Sniffles the rabbit consent to being kept in a hutch and let out only when the kiddies want to play with it and give it exercise at a time that suits them? Does that lion consent to being kept in a zoo for all its life?
What evidence is there that it causes the animal pain and suffering? What about if the animal initiates sex or returns for sex? What about an animal that is strong than humans and could easily kick the human if it was in discomfort (e.g. mounting a horse from behind)? Is the discomfort suffered by the animal worse than death?
Do animals consent to being taken for walkies? Do horses consent to being ridden? Does the Andrex puppy consent to advertising toilet paper? Do chihuahuas consent to being dressed in designer jackets, having their nails polished and being carried about in the handbags of celebrities? Does Sniffles the rabbit consent to being kept in a hutch and let out only when the kiddies want to play with it and give it exercise at a time that suits them? Does that lion consent to being kept in a zoo for all its life?
What evidence is there that it causes the animal pain and suffering? What about if the animal initiates sex or returns for sex? What about an animal that is strong than humans and could easily kick the human if it was in discomfort (e.g. mounting a horse from behind)? Is the discomfort suffered by the animal worse than death?
LOL u r weak minded obviously animal sex is WRONG because they can not CONSENT so it is RAPE and RAPE is WRONG. Are you STUPID???
Original post by EskimoJo
So do some pet owners and farm animal keepers. Normally you just leave the people to do what they want to animals unless someone happens to get wind of abuse and alerts the authorities. You don't just make it illegal because it's ikky.
Normally you just leave the people to do what they want to animals unless someone happens to get wind of abuse and alerts the authorities. You don't just make it illegal because it's ikky.Yes exactly, pet ownership "has been known to involve the abuse of the animal", as has basically every other kind of human-animal interaction. I wonder how widely Tommyjw thinks humans should be forbidden from coming into contact with animals. I presume he's a strict vegan as well? I don't know.
Original post by EskimoJo
So do some pet owners and farm animal keepers. Normally you just leave the people to do what they want to animals unless someone happens to get wind of abuse and alerts the authorities. You don't just make it illegal because it's ikky.
Normally you just leave the people to do what they want to animals unless someone happens to get wind of abuse and alerts the authorities. You don't just make it illegal because it's ikky.Nowhere did i say it is illegal because it is 'ikky'.. so i'd like to know why you felt like posting that piece of completely rambling irrelevant information?
Original post by cttp_ngaf
He asked how zoophilia harms society, this doesn't answer that. The crux is the weak link between zoophilia and animal abuse, much like how gays were considered rapists and dangerous not so long ago. Can there not just be acceptable zoophilia, and unacceptable abusive forms? Just like we have for every other kind of sexual practice?
It "having been known to involve" animal abuse is hardly a valid reason alone. Straight human sex "has been known to involve the abuse of women. Not all "heterosexuals" abuse women, but it happens. Abusing women is harmful to society, is it not?"
It "having been known to involve" animal abuse is hardly a valid reason alone. Straight human sex "has been known to involve the abuse of women. Not all "heterosexuals" abuse women, but it happens. Abusing women is harmful to society, is it not?"
More rambling.
Yes it does, animals being abused harms soceity. Anyone with any normal standard of intelligence can realize that.
Yet again, you ignore any main points put aross and therefor you now sound like an idiot.
Like i have said MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE. In reference to your example.. sex benefits society more than the minority of abusive sex harms it. The benefits outweight the harms.
There are no benefits with zoophilia, just harms. This is obvious, get a brain and stop being so idiotic.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Tommyjw
Yes it does, animals being abused harms soceity.
I never said it didn't...
There are no benefits with zoophilia, just harms. This is obvious, get a brain and stop being so idiotic.
It benefits those who enjoy it, clearly. What is the threshold participation level where a deviant sexual practice becomes acceptable on these grounds?
Original post by EskimoJo
They don't consent because sex isn't and never will be all that serious for them. It's not about ethics or morals, building a relationship, peer-pressure, regrets, being drunk, crying rape, looking cool... it's just an urge for sex, released. And then they move on.
Do animals consent to being taken for walkies? Do horses consent to being ridden? Does the Andrex puppy consent to advertising toilet paper? Do chihuahuas consent to being dressed in designer jackets, having their nails polished and being carried about in the handbags of celebrities? Does Sniffles the rabbit consent to being kept in a hutch and let out only when the kiddies want to play with it and give it exercise at a time that suits them? Does that lion consent to being kept in a zoo for all its life?
What evidence is there that it causes the animal pain and suffering? What about if the animal initiates sex or returns for sex? What about an animal that is strong than humans and could easily kick the human if it was in discomfort (e.g. mounting a horse from behind)? Is the discomfort suffered by the animal worse than death?
Do animals consent to being taken for walkies? Do horses consent to being ridden? Does the Andrex puppy consent to advertising toilet paper? Do chihuahuas consent to being dressed in designer jackets, having their nails polished and being carried about in the handbags of celebrities? Does Sniffles the rabbit consent to being kept in a hutch and let out only when the kiddies want to play with it and give it exercise at a time that suits them? Does that lion consent to being kept in a zoo for all its life?
What evidence is there that it causes the animal pain and suffering? What about if the animal initiates sex or returns for sex? What about an animal that is strong than humans and could easily kick the human if it was in discomfort (e.g. mounting a horse from behind)? Is the discomfort suffered by the animal worse than death?
The evidence that it causes the animal pain and suffering exists, it just isn't tangible. You could no more prove an animal is enduring pain whilst being kicked than ****ed.
That the animal has not expressed discomfort shouldn't stop us from considering whether the act was likely to cause it suffering.
People who who engage in such practices are prosecuted under the category of "abuse."
Your argument concerning tacit consent is too simplistic. An animal might be large enough to resist amorous advances, but might have a learned (and justified) fear of human beings.
To turn the issue on its head: If you can justify sex with an animal, what arguments are there against sex with a baby?
Original post by cttp_ngaf
It benefits those who enjoy it, clearly. What is the threshold participation level where a deviant sexual practice becomes acceptable on these grounds?
It benefits those who enjoy it, clearly. What is the threshold participation level where a deviant sexual practice becomes acceptable on these grounds?
Some people enjoy eating people, some people enjoy being eaten. It does not make it ok, the harms to society to allow this to happens would far outweight the benefits to the individuals mind.
Same concept, to a lesser extent.
Original post by cttp_ngaf
How so?
And, is it only intercourse that will cause pain and suffering, or other "sexual" activities with animals as well?
And, is it only intercourse that will cause pain and suffering, or other "sexual" activities with animals as well?
I am not going to explain exactly how the penetration of an animal is likely to cause it pain and suffering. This is not the platform for such a graphic discussion.
I wouldn't prosecute on the "other sexual activities". Which isn't to say that the behaviour shouldn't be examined. In a clinical setting.
Original post by Tommyjw
Some people enjoy eating people, some people enjoy being eaten. It does not make it ok, the harms to society to allow this to happens would far outweight the benefits to the individuals mind.
Same concept, to a lesser extent.
Same concept, to a lesser extent.
So what is the threshold participation level, if there is one? Are these things clear-cut in your mind, such as if more than 5% of population "like it", the rest should let them get on with it?
Original post by Mr Disco
I am not going to explain exactly how the penetration of an animal is likely to cause it pain and suffering. This is not the platform for such a graphic discussion.
Firstly that entirely depends on the relative sizes. I'm flattered, but I assure you no horse is going to notice me ****ing it.
Secondly, you should know that the rest of us aren't thinking exclusively of men putting their dicks into animals. Sex goes both ways, for starters, and there are other possible activities (as you acknowledged).
Original post by cttp_ngaf
So what is the threshold participation level, if there is one? Are these things clear-cut in your mind, such as if more than 5% of population "like it", the rest should let them get on with it?
There is no 'participation level'
It is about whether freely allowing it provides any benefits or harms to society, and if any significant benefit is gained by legalizing such things.
Original post by Varciani
Yes really. You are a troll because you know the comments you make are inflammatory, and you post them to get a reaction. That's being a troll.
There is a difference between having sex with an animal and having sex with a human, whether they be the same sex as you or not. How can you not see the big massive difference? One group are ANIMALS, the other are HUMAN.
I don't even need to explain this any further.
There is a difference between having sex with an animal and having sex with a human, whether they be the same sex as you or not. How can you not see the big massive difference? One group are ANIMALS, the other are HUMAN.
I don't even need to explain this any further.
surprise, surprise humans are animals...
Original post by Mr Disco
The evidence that it causes the animal pain and suffering exists, it just isn't tangible. You could no more prove an animal is enduring pain whilst being kicked than ****ed.
That the animal has not expressed discomfort shouldn't stop us from considering whether the act was likely to cause it suffering.
People who who engage in such practices are prosecuted under the category of "abuse."
Your argument concerning tacit consent is too simplistic. An animal might be large enough to resist amorous advances, but might have a learned (and justified) fear of human beings.
To turn the issue on its head: If you can justify sex with an animal, what arguments are there against sex with a baby?
That the animal has not expressed discomfort shouldn't stop us from considering whether the act was likely to cause it suffering.
People who who engage in such practices are prosecuted under the category of "abuse."
Your argument concerning tacit consent is too simplistic. An animal might be large enough to resist amorous advances, but might have a learned (and justified) fear of human beings.
To turn the issue on its head: If you can justify sex with an animal, what arguments are there against sex with a baby?
The animal is sexually mature...
Spoiler
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Tommyjw
There is no 'participation level'
It is about whether freely allowing it provides any benefits or harms to society, and if any significant benefit is gained by legalizing such things.
It is about whether freely allowing it provides any benefits or harms to society, and if any significant benefit is gained by legalizing such things.
I see, so all pretty vague I suppose. Just like with faggotry which organised a large political pressure group and a marketing campaign to alter public opinion - I know people didn't sit down and work out what % of the population likes gay sex and then decide whether it should be accepted.
Original post by imperial maniac
A better comparison would be the Neanderthal man.
Shame we killed them all though, hmm...
Shame we killed them all though, hmm...
Evidence that humans mated with Neanderthals. Google it!
Original post by Mr Disco
To turn the issue on its head: If you can justify sex with an animal, what arguments are there against sex with a baby?
Basically forbidding sex with minors and young children keeps our society in a certain shape that we like, that's all. It's not inherently wrong (nothing is...), and the psychological harm exists only because the child has been taught that what happened to them is wrong/bad/sick/etc.
These things vary between cultures and different times in history.
Let's face it, ****ing off onto a baby actually harms no one at all, but we just find it so extremely unusual that we are moved to outlaw it and probably beat to death anyone known to do it.
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 37 minutes ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 41 minutes ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 43 minutes ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 49 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 hour ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 1 hour ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 18 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
