Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#261
Report 7 years ago
#261
(Original post by innerhollow)
Google it yourself.

The fact is you are a massive hypocrite. You don't give a **** about protecting animals, and you're quite happy for people to eat them, capture them, etc.- you just don't like the thought of people having sex with them because it personally repulses you.
... :facepalm:
Your so embarrassing.
'"the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies"'
It is really not hard to understand, clearly for you it is.

Also, google the term hypocrite, because you don't understand what that means either.
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#262
Report 7 years ago
#262
(Original post by imperial maniac)
You are automatically linking zoophilia with abuse to the animals.

People harming animals is wrong whether or not they are zoophiles.

If some zoophiles harm animals, it is not because they are zoophiles, the two issues are entirely separate.
Guess you didn't read what i told people to read.
Where they clearly state a person who has such sexual desires for animals is much more likely to end up abusing the animals.

They are not completely separate :facepalm:

My god your arguments are terrible.
0
Hylean
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#263
Report 7 years ago
#263
(Original post by imperial maniac)
2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.
Whilst I have no issues with zoophilia, it is a fetish, not a sexuality. Get your facts straight. A straight, female zoophile will not suddenly start being attracted to female animals just because they are animals. Likewise, a gay, female zoophile will not suddenly become attracted to male animals just because they are animals.
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#264
Report 7 years ago
#264
(Original post by Tommyjw)
... :facepalm:
Your so embarrassing.
'"the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies"'
It is really not hard to understand, clearly for you it is.
*You're

Regardless, I have explained this to you about three times now- your comment is that '"the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies"' is almost IDENTICAL to a comment I made myself. You know the definition, but you clearly can't understand the concept, otherwise you would easily be able to tell where the burden of proof lies. Also, if your response to my rather patient explanations is just to rant that I don't understand, you will never learn.


Also, google the term hypocrite, because you don't understand what that means either.
Anyway, thank you for a rather unsatisfying argument, but I have stuff to do. You can go rant at someone else
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#265
Report 7 years ago
#265
(Original post by innerhollow)
*You're

Regardless, I have explained this to you about three times now. If your response to my rather patient explanations is just to rant that I don't understand, you will never learn.

Anyway, thank you for a rather unsatisfying argument, but I have stuff to do. You can go rant at someone else
Meh, you've been entertaining.
Even resorting to commenting on that :L . Bless.

I've never seen anyone completely ignore pure facts (like what the burden of proof is and who it lies on) just to satisfy their own naive mind. I guess if the facts don't support your side of the argument you ignore them? Good job.. really.


One person states something. I stated he is wrong.
It is on him to proof his view, not on me to prove he is wrong?

Is it really that hard to understand? are you really so unintelligent as to being unable to understand simple facts and logic? :facepalm:
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#266
Report 7 years ago
#266
(Original post by Tefhel)
Animals can't consent, the end.
You can't ask an animal "Can I have sex with you?" and for them to understand what that means and entails and say Yes. The same reason paedophilia isn't accepted, because pre-pubescent children cannot consent to sex either.
I take it it's wrong for people to have sex without that question being asked first? Every time a man ends up in a bedroom having his kisses returned, his body touched and his venture into a woman's knickers not resisted, it's wrong because he didn't specifically ask for sex and the woman may not understand why he's touching her there and what it's going to lead to?
Listen, animals have sex. They know what it is. They can be led to arousal by humans and around humans. They can willingly go to humans to release their arousal. Maybe not for a loving, passionate affair, but to release a basic need. Maybe the animal doesn't really give a damn if it's a human, a couch leg, or a cushion, but if you allow the animal to use you or can encourage the animal to choose you for that release (while giving it the freedom to leave when it wants), what's the part that's wrong?
In my mind, it's disgusting, same as in your mind by the sound of it, but that isn't really an argument. I'm hoping to find a flawless argument against it because I don't like not being able to disagree with something I actively find disgusting.
0
Tefhel
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#267
Report 7 years ago
#267
(Original post by EskimoJo)
I take it it's wrong for people to have sex without that question being asked first? Every time a man ends up in a bedroom having his kisses returned, his body touched and his venture into a woman's knickers not resisted, it's wrong because he didn't specifically ask for sex and the woman may not understand why he's touching her there and what it's going to lead to?
Well I don't believe that but a hell of a lot of girls here do. I remember a thread a while ago where a lot of women were saying if you don't specifically ask then it's rape/sexual assault.

Anyway, yeah I agree with you that it's hard to think of a flawless argument against it.
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#268
Report 7 years ago
#268
(Original post by Tommyjw)
One person states something. I stated he is wrong.
It is on him to proof his view, not on me to prove he is wrong?
I have tried explaining this to you about 5 times now, and each time you refuse to listen. AGAIN, using your logic:

Person A states that goblins do NOT exist. Person B states that he is wrong

And you're telling me that the Burden of proof lies with Person A? What a load of crap.

You see, I am able to remain quite calm and composed because I know what I'm saying is sensible and that my argument stands for itself. You are unable to do anything but use endless streams of abusive language and outbursts.
0
cttp_ngaf
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#269
Report 7 years ago
#269
(Original post by Mr Disco)
It is obvious.

The difference is in consent.
Do you feel that animals can "consent" to anything a human wishes to do with them? If so, what, and how/why is it different sexual activity (whatever that even includes).

If not, do you think that should change how we interact with animals? Perhaps we should avoid interfering with them at all, because in every case they can't "consent" and so we are always abusing them in some way?

Thanks
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#270
Report 7 years ago
#270
(Original post by innerhollow)
I have tried explaining this to you about 5 times now, and each time you refuse to listen. AGAIN, using your logic:

Person A states that goblins do NOT exist. Person B states that he is wrong.

And you're telling me that the Burden of proof lies with Person A? Nonsense.
Yes, that is a simple fact :facepalm:

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Just because you can make an outlandish example like that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Burden of proof in a typical NORMAL example:
- Person A claims person B broke his car window
- Person B claims he didn't

It lies with person A to prove B did it, it is not B's job to prove he didn't

But, like i said, you seem to like ignoring what the true factual definition and concept of the burden of proof is.
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#271
Report 7 years ago
#271
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Yes, that is a simple fact :facepalm:

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Just because you can make an outlandish example like that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Burden of proof in a typical NORMAL example:
- Person A claims person B broke his car window
- Person B claims he didn't

It lies with person A to prove B did it, it is not B's job to prove he didn't

But, like i said, you seem to like ignoring what the true factual definition and concept of the burden of proof is.
Ok, so what about the people earlier in the thread who are claiming that humans having sex with animals harms the animals. Surely they have to prove that claim?
It goes either way.
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#272
Report 7 years ago
#272
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Yes, that is a simple fact :facepalm:

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.
Just because you can make an outlandish example like that doesn't mean it is wrong.

Burden of proof in a typical NORMAL example:
- Person A claims person B broke his car window
- Person B claims he didn't

It lies with person A to prove B did it, it is not B's job to prove he didn't

But, like i said, you seem to like ignoring what the true factual definition and concept of the burden of proof is.
The "normal" and "outlandish" examples are both illustrations of the Burden of proof.

Yeah I'm done trying to explain this to you. You are correct with the window example, but otherwise wrong. In the example on this thread you were wrong. YOU had the burden of proof to prove that beastiality causes harm, just like PersonA has the burden to prove that PersonB broke his car window. It's not valid to say "You can't prove that beastiality doesn't cause harm".


(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Ok, so what about the people earlier in the thread who are claiming that humans having sex with animals harms the animals. Surely they have to prove that claim?
It goes either way.
Thank you!
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#273
Report 7 years ago
#273
(Original post by LethalBizzle)
No they can't. The age of consent is 16. Before then they aren't considered mature enough to give consent, even though they are far more capable than most sheep I've met.
No. The age of consent in this country is 16. In many countries it's lower, going as low as 10 (I think) and I've seen it as old as 20. Also in many countries, the age of consent for homosexuals is older than the 'normal' age of consent (as it was in the UK until as recently as 2001[???]). Does that mean homosexuals are less mature?
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#274
Report 7 years ago
#274
(Original post by Beatballs)
After you read this, I guarantee you will feel sorry for me.

Imagine this. You are attracted to women, like you are now (emotionally and sexually), but they do not exist. They existed a long time ago, and no one knows what they looked like (They have a pretty good idea from the fossils, however), but they do not exist anymore. That means, not only do you know there will never be any possibility of you having sex with one, but there's not even a possibility of you ever seeing one in real life. Everyone else, however, except for a very few, are not attracted to women, they are attracted to something else entirely. So in other words, you will never find any porn anywhere on the internet, only non-sexual pictures of women. Everyone you have told about your attraction to women think it's disgusting. To relieve yourself, you get off on the non-sexual pictures of women, knowing it will never get any better.

That's what life is like to me.

I am a degree 6 Zoosexual, sexually and emotionally attracted to Tyrannosaurs and nothing else.Women don't even do it for me. I am cursed to live my life in the misery that my most powerful emotional fantasies will never be even close to coming true. Life is like hell to me. I will never know true love.
a) Rule 34
b) I can lend you my VHS of Jurassic Park if you'd like...
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#275
Report 7 years ago
#275
(Original post by Tefhel)
Well I don't believe that but a hell of a lot of girls here do. I remember a thread a while ago where a lot of women were saying if you don't specifically ask then it's rape/sexual assault.

Anyway, yeah I agree with you that it's hard to think of a flawless argument against it.
I'm sure it's out there somewhere! I'm going through the whole thread now.
Perhaps the people should be left alone and should only be prosecuted if there are signs of abuse/harm to the animal. Oh, I don't know! :dontknow:
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#276
Report 7 years ago
#276
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Ok, so what about the people earlier in the thread who are claiming that humans having sex with animals harms the animals. Surely they have to prove that claim?
It goes either way.
Yes, i didn't say it doesn't. I have not made mention to anyone else. The purpose of the discussion between me and innerhollow is purely for the point we were discussing. I agree anyone who says that it does cause harm (without denying someone who said it doesn't) has to prove it, but i have not done that. I am not here to dispute whether it does cause harm or not, this is something none of us can 100% prove either way unless someone finds and reads a suitable article/book on the subject. The whole point of this was that if you are say the 'first person to comment (for sake of pure discussion) and you make a claim in that comment, you have to prove that claim, anyone that says they think you are wrong does not have to prove why.

(Original post by innerhollow)
The "normal" and "outlandish" examples are both illustrations of the Burden of proof.

Yeah I'm done trying to explain this to you. You are correct with the window example, but otherwise wrong. In the example on this thread you were wrong. YOU had the burden of proof to prove that beastiality causes harm, just like PersonA has the burden to prove that PersonB broke his car window. It's not valid to say "You can't prove that beastiality doesn't cause harm".
What are you talking about?

You STILL don't understand, you cannot just change around the burden of proof just because it doesn't suite your needs.

When he said it doesnt cause harm to animals, he has to prove it.
When someone says it DOES, they have to prove it.
The person who makes the claim has the burden, no matter who they are.

I never made a claim, i simplied denied someone else's claim, the burden of proof is not on me, it's really not hard to understand.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#277
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#277
(Original post by Tommyjw)

Oh and by the way, the slave trade brings no benefits actually
Good job there, making a completely irrelevant comparison, and just plane wrong. Good job.
Erm, the slave trade was the life-blood of the empire for years, it was only abolished because it was morally wrong...
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#278
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#278
(Original post by Tommyjw)
... :facepalm:
Your so embarrassing.
'"the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies"'
It is really not hard to understand, clearly for you it is.

Also, google the term hypocrite, because you don't understand what that means either.
Are you actually reading his posts? They make perfect logical sense.

If I say I am not a murderer, and then someone accuses me of being a murderer, the proof has to be brought forward by the party accusing me of the murder, regardless of which statement is made first.
0
LethalBizzle
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#279
Report 7 years ago
#279
(Original post by EskimoJo)
No. The age of consent in this country is 16. In many countries it's lower, going as low as 10 (I think) and I've seen it as old as 20. Also in many countries, the age of consent for homosexuals is older than the 'normal' age of consent (as it was in the UK until as recently as 2001[???]). Does that mean homosexuals are less mature?
Irrelevant. The important thing is that there is a line, and sex with animals is well below that line. The line may vary country to country but thats not the point at all.

With regards to homosexuals, I think the law is wrong and should be changed, it probably will soon. Must be a hangover from a time when homosexual intercourse was regarded as more dangerous.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#280
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#280
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Guess you didn't read what i told people to read.
Where they clearly state a person who has such sexual desires for animals is much more likely to end up abusing the animals.

They are not completely separate :facepalm:

My god your arguments are terrible.
Yes they are completely separate issues! Your sexuality is not linked in any way to the likelihood of you abusing your partner.

Either link me to a short passage, quote it in your post, or make a valid argument, I'm not going to read an entire book on the subject because you tell me to.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (179)
39.34%
No - but I will (25)
5.49%
No - I don't want to (32)
7.03%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (219)
48.13%

Watched Threads

View All