Why is zoophilia condemned and homosexuality not? Watch

This discussion is closed.
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#301
Report 7 years ago
#301
(Original post by Tommyjw)
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.
For the last time, look up the burden of proof yourself! It has nothing to do with the ORDERin which the two statements are said! Did you really think it was THAT simple? Otherwise this ridiculous outcome would arise:

"Person A: Beastiality doesn't harm anyone" *Person A has burden of proof*
"Person B: I refute your claim. Beastiality does cause harm" *Person A still has burden of proof*
"Person C: I think you're wrong, B. Beastiality doesn't cause harm". *Person A has burden of proof to B, and Person B has burden of proof to C*

So basically, the burden of proof is going both ways simultaneously in this scenario where, according to you, we ascribe the burden of proof chronologically. How does that work exactly?!

You clearly don't understand the burden of proof whatsoever, so you have massively simplified it to a level you can understand. As another user has said, you apply Occam's Razor to find out where the burden of proof lies. The hypothesis that involves the least number of assumptions is assumed the most likely, therefore any hypothesis which posits an assumption carries the burden of proof.

Because you clearly can't handle any of that, let's play your game. When I joined this thread, you were asserting that beastiality causes harm. I am now denying your claim. According solely to your logic that the order of statements is the predicator of burden of proof, you now have the burden of proof. Happy?

(Original post by imperial maniac)
Are you actually reading his posts? They make perfect logical sense.
Good god. Thank you!!
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#302
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#302
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Still yet to get serious answers towards my argument about the burden of proof and you claiming it does no harm to society.
I don't need to prove anything!

You need to prove why zoophilia is a danger to society.
0
Varciani
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#303
Report 7 years ago
#303
(Original post by imperial maniac)
I'm not posting this to get a reaction.

I have specifically tried to avoid being inflammatory, if you can't handle the subject, that is your issue, not mine.
Nice way to avoid the points I made.

That's the thing about trolls, they avoid any argument made that directly proves them wrong.
0
ohm
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#304
Report 7 years ago
#304
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Why is this?

I am not talking about animals being forced to mate with humans, rather an intimate sexual relationship between both partners, to which both have consented in their own way and in which neither party is harmed.

It just seems like a double standard to me, I don't understand either zoophilia or homosexuality. The arguments for homosexuality and the arguments for zoophilia appear to be fairly similar. Yet one is outright condemned and the other is accepted as normal behaviour.

1. Both parties involved are consenting adults.

2. Both zoophilia and homosexuality are a sexuality, rather than a fetish.

3. Both involve an intimate relationship.

4. Both occur in nature.

5. Neither can result in offspring.

Thoughts? I don't even know why this came across my mind, I guess this is what happens when I do too much procrastinating.

Please note: I am not a troll, BNP supporter, a homophobe or a Zoophile, I am a student trying to have a sensible discussion and understand the logic behind people's opinions.
Why so many stupid people are making stupid threads in TSR?
1
Lambo_93
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#305
Report 7 years ago
#305
(Original post by CharlotteM/)
Well humans can consent to a relationship. Animals can't. If they're just having sex, (because with an animal, it won't go deeper than that) then it's not a proper relationship, and it's just weird. Why would you ask such a stupid question?
ahah

but in all seriousnes - Having sex with an animal isn't cool
1
moon_shine
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#306
Report 7 years ago
#306
how can animals consent?? they cant speak.... homosexuality is between 2 members of the same species, but zoophilia isnt
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#307
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#307
(Original post by Varciani)
Nice way to avoid the points I made.

That's the thing about trolls, they avoid any argument made that directly proves them wrong.
Read the thread.

Then come back, I'm not repeating the argument to every new poster that accuses me of being a stupid troll.

All you have said is that animals are not humans.

I gathered that already, stating the obvious is not making a moral argument against zoophilia.
0
EskimoJo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#308
Report 7 years ago
#308
(Original post by Einheri)
I think this is a bad argument; the animal can't voice it's consent but it can show whether it objects to the situation, is in pain or distressed. If you do something to an animal that it doesn't like it'll tell you about it - if, for example, you stood behind a horse and tried to penetrate it and it objected to that it would responded by kicking your ribcage into mush. Also, the fact is sex really isn't a big deal to most species and so neither is the issue of consent. I used to live on a farm and have several times seen animals mount other animals of the same or different species without any kind of reaction - sexual consent is really a human issue, saying it is required of an animal is really just anthropomorphism. And the argument is even more ridiculous when the law allows animals to be killed and eaten by humans without their consent (something animals woud naturally object to).

Personally, as long as the animal isn't in distress or pain then I've no problem with bestiality. Making it illegal is just moralising by an unaffected third party. Personally, as an heterosexual male, I find the idea of two men screwing to be just as naturally repulsive as interspecies sex but as long as it isn't hurting anyone, human or otherwise, then I say they should be allowed to do what they want without the law intervening.
Urgh! What a great argument. +rep
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#309
Report 7 years ago
#309
(Original post by innerhollow)
For the last time, look up the burden of proof yourself! It has nothing to do with the order in which the two statements are said! Did you really think it was THAT simple? You clearly don't understand the burden of proof whatsoever, so you have massively simplified it to a level you can understand. As another user has said, you apply Occam's Razor to find out where the burden of proof lies. The hypothesis that involves the least number of assumptions is assumed the most likely, therefore any hypothesis which posits an assumption carries the burden of proof.

Because you clearly can't handle any of that, let's play your game. When I joined this thread, you were asserting that beastiality causes harm. I am now denying your claim. According solely to your logic that the order of statements is the predicator of burden of proof, you now have the burden of proof. Happy?
Stop acting so stupid.
The order is important here.
I'd like you to give me evidence and facts as to how i am wrong?

Don't try and use occam's razor here. It doesn't relate here. Neither assumption (if it does or does not harm society) has any real difference in the number of assumptions it has. Thus is not reasonable to pick one over the other for the basis of the argument. This is obvious.

and read below.


(Original post by imperial maniac)
I don't need to prove anything!

You need to prove why zoophilia is a danger to society.
Yes you do :facepalm:

Nowhere did i say it IS a harm to society, thus i do not have to prove anything that I did not state. At most i said i think it is, this is not a claim, this is an opinion, a belief, this is not something one has to prove.

You have stated it does not harm society in any way.;
You made a claim
A claim to which have provided no evidence or facts at all, not one single little drop, and continue to ignore this.
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#310
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#310
(Original post by EskimoJo)
Urgh! What a great argument. +rep
I really WANT logical and rational argument proving that zoophilia is morally wrong.

Rather embarrassingly, there doesn't seem to be one.
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#311
Report 7 years ago
#311
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Stop acting so stupid.
The order is important here.
I'd like you to give me evidence and facts as to how i am wrong?

Don't try and use occam's razor here. It doesn't relate here. Neither assumption (if it does or does not harm society) has any real difference in the number of assumptions it has. Thus is not reasonable to pick one over the other for the basis of the argument. This is obvious.

and read below.




Yes you do :facepalm:

Nowhere did i say it IS a harm to society, thus i do not have to prove anything that I did not state. At most i said i think it is, this is not a claim, this is an opinion, a belief, this is not something one has to prove.

You have stated it does not harm society in any way.;
You made a claim
A claim to which have provided no evidence or facts at all, not one single little drop, and continue to ignore this.
You are GENUINELY an idiot though. Seriously, you are truly dumb, and in your idiocy, you accuse everyone around of you of idiocy. You think the slave trade didn't bring any economic benefits? :rofl: Jesus Christ, open your eyes you pleb.

You actually did state that beastiality harms society, and you said that you had read books which evidence this principle. I have not at any point said that beastiality does not harm society, only said that I find your claim "hard to believe". Ergo, according to your own logic, YOU have the burden of proof. Now give us some reasonable proof that beastiality harms society, or shut up, k?

In reality, the order isn't important, you retard. Otherwise the burden of proof would keep changing when more than 2 people are involved in the discussion. Occam's Razor IS applicable here, you just don't understand it. Assuming that beastiality harms society is the assumption in this context. Assuming that beastiality does not harm society is not actually an assumption, just like assuming God doesn't exist is not an assumption. Assuming that beastiality does not harm society is the null hypothesis.
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#312
Report 7 years ago
#312
(Original post by imperial maniac)
I really WANT logical and rational argument proving that zoophilia is morally wrong.

Rather embarrassingly, there doesn't seem to be one.
Says the one providing no basis of evidence for any claism you make, such as that it is not a harm at all to soceity

Oh, i forgot, you don't have to provide anything.. that would be silly.. only people not on your side have to give evidence.. not you :teehee:
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#313
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#313
(Original post by Tommyjw)
What about that i have read that people who turn to animals for sex are more likely to lead to abusing animals and those humans later on in life? I severely doubt 10% of the people who are sexually attracted to animals, and carry it out, do so in a very angelic and nice way .. it is quite obvuious there are going to be plenty of people who force it on the animal.
THERE, you specifically assert that 90%+ of zoophiles abuse their partners without any evidence to back up your claim.

Quote the passage directly from the source, or stfu about this burden of proof stuff.
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#314
Report 7 years ago
#314
(Original post by innerhollow)
You are GENUINELY an idiot though. Seriously, you are truly dumb, and in your idiocy, you accuse everyone around of you of idiocy. You think the slave trade didn't bring any economic benefits? :rofl: Jesus Christ, open your eyes you pleb.

You actually did state that beastiality harms society, and you said that you had read books which evidence this principle. Ergo, according to your own logic, YOU have the burden of proof. Now prove that beastiality harms society, or shut up, k?

In reality, the order isn't important, you retard. Otherwise the burden of proof would keep changing when more than 2 people are involved in the discussion. Occam's Razor IS applicable here, you just don't understand it.
You still haven't said how bringing the slave trade brang economic benefits.

Taking say, 1 million? people out of work etc, and making them slaves. I'd like a full analysis from you as to how this would benefit our economy. But your not going to do it.. no.. how silly of me to think your intelligent enough to back up your claims.

You don't understand the burden of proof
Burden of proof simply lies with the person making the claim, not the person denying it. This is fact, this is the law, as has been established for years upon years. The fact you seem to disagree does not matter. Pure facts. Keep arguing with whatever pathetic reasons you come up with, but it is fact.

You don't understand occams razor.
In order to use this principle there has to be two hypothesis, which have a significant difference in the assumptions they make.

Here is a classic example, if your simple minds understand it.
Crop circles in a field, it is either aliens.. or humans with tools.
Occams razor applies here, saying that we , until further evidence is provided, believe that humans did it. As the hypothesis that aliens exist provide more assumptions that the other option.

Our example.
- Zoophilia harms society
- Zoophilia does not harm society.

Please tell me with your great logic just how they assume different amount of things?


(Original post by imperial maniac)
THERE, you specifically assert that 90%+ of zoophiles abuse their partners without any evidence to back up your claim.

Quote the passage directly from the source, or stfu about this burden of proof stuff.

It's called a guess. Learn the difference. I did not quote a source, i did not say where it came from, it is obvious this number was pulled from thin air in order to substantiate my side of the argument
The second part is then an assumption, a reasonable (and quite factual) statement. That there are obviously people who harm the animal whilst doing this, if you think no1 has ever had sex weith an animal and not cared they are hurting it, you are deluded.

Now, are you going to contunie being an idiotic fool and ignoring anything anyone says against you , or are you going to back up some of your claims?

Nah, your not are you, because that would be silly, why would you back up your own claims with real evidence, is it because there isn't any? :O!

I really am dealing with the two most unintelligent people on this forum.
One ignores pure facts in order to support his own opinion, and the other provides claims to which he ignores calls for prove because he knows there is none and doesnt want to back down :L Funny.
0
Lord Jon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#315
Report 7 years ago
#315
Because every time a Cow moos, It is propositioning you for sex isn't it OP?

:moo:

Spoiler:
Show


:sexface:



Because animals cannot consent to us having sex. If I say to a sheep "do you want a shag" I hardly think it will say yes and let me mount it now.

There is a difference between two humans having consensual sex between the same ex and animals having sex with people.


And no homosexuals are not animals op :fyi:
0
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#316
Report 7 years ago
#316
(Original post by imperial maniac)
..
' There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002), but each of them has drawn and agreed on several broad conclusions:'

'Beetz described the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality as being somewhere between crime, paraphilia and love, although she says that most research has been based on criminological reports, so the cases have frequently involved violence and psychiatric illness'

Proof that a researcher her/him self has stated that there are cases to which the animals are harmed.

Nuff said.
0
innerhollow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#317
Report 7 years ago
#317
(Original post by Tommyjw)
X
Reintroducing the slave trade would reduce the unit cost of labour greatly, which would reduce the price of many goods and services by a huge margin. It would also lead to increased free-time for slave-owners, and contribute to economic growth through the flow of assets created by such a massive slave industry. Hence why it was so widely used in ancient times before people had the sense to ban it.


"The statement that [bestiality] does not cause harm" is a NULL HYPOTHESIS

"THe statement that [bestiality] does cause harm" is the ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS


Now look up those two terms, read the definitions and examples until you understand them, and stop bothering me with your sheer ignorance. The fact that you have deemed anyone and everyone who does not agree with you an idiot illustrates your own idiocy and lack of intelligence. Perhaps educating yourself will humble your unjustified ego.
0
LethalBizzle
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#318
Report 7 years ago
#318
(Original post by Tommyjw)
You still haven't said how bringing the slave trade brang economic benefits.

Taking say, 1 million? people out of work etc, and making them slaves. I'd like a full analysis from you as to how this would benefit our economy. But your not going to do it.. no.. how silly of me to think your intelligent enough to back up your claims.

You don't understand the burden of proof
Burden of proof simply lies with the person making the claim, not the person denying it. This is fact, this is the law, as has been established for years upon years. The fact you seem to disagree does not matter. Pure facts. Keep arguing with whatever pathetic reasons you come up with, but it is fact.

You don't understand occams razor.
In order to use this principle there has to be two hypothesis, which have a significant difference in the assumptions they make.

Here is a classic example, if your simple minds understand it.
Crop circles in a field, it is either aliens.. or humans with tools.
Occams razor applies here, saying that we , until further evidence is provided, believe that humans did it. As the hypothesis that aliens exist provide more assumptions that the other option.

Our example.
- Zoophilia harms society
- Zoophilia does not harm society.

Please tell me with your great logic just how they assume different amount of things?
"Zoophilia harms society" clearly has more assumptions.

And calling people stupid doesn't help you win an argument.


- Impartial observer.
1
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#319
Report 7 years ago
#319
(Original post by LethalBizzle)
"Zoophilia harms society" clearly has more assumptions.
How on earth does it have more assumptions?
There are no assumptions to be made, no evidence or facts that either argument side with or go against? :Facepalm:

By the way, provided evidence that a researcher in to the topic has admitted there has been cases of it where the animals have been abused and such.

(Original post by innerhollow)
Reintroducing the slave trade would...

"The statement that [bestiality] does not cause harm" is a NULL HYPOTHESIS

"THe statement that [bestiality] does cause harm" is the ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS
Wow.. so you REALLY think taking a significant portion of the population away from there jobs, away from paying tax and such, would really benefit the economy?
My god, i didn't think you were serious but you really are :L

MY god, i love how ignorant you are. 1 million less people paying tax, 1 million less people doing jobs. Jobs such as accouterments, doctors, binmen etc etc.. how on earth would we benefit by taking these people and getting cheaper labour? We are a country larger built on the tertiary sector at the moment. Cheap labour will do nothing for our economy when comparing it to the jobs in the tertiary sector. Putting all these people that make that sector as profitable it is, and taking it in to the smallest sector (for a reason) of our economy is ridiculous.

Pathetic.. really is, quite embarrassing actually.
-------------------

Please explain to me how the opinion it does not cause harm is the null hypothesis?
Given a null hypothesis is the general, default position.
Thus, given societies morals and how the majority of people (whetehr it is wrong or not) dislike zoophilia, just how exactly is the 'default position' that it doesnt cause harm? The general hypotehsis based upon the world's views is that it does, else it would be viewed in such a bad way.

Next?
0
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#320
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#320
(Original post by Tommyjw)
It's called a guess. Learn the difference. I did not quote a source, i did not say where it came from, it is obvious this number was pulled from thin air in order to substantiate my side of the argument
The second part is then an assumption, a reasonable (and quite factual) statement. That there are obviously people who harm the animal whilst doing this, if you think no1 has ever had sex weith an animal and not cared they are hurting it, you are deluded.

Now, are you going to contunie being an idiotic fool and ignoring anything anyone says against you , or are you going to back up some of your claims?

Nah, your not are you, because that would be silly, why would you back up your own claims with real evidence, is it because there isn't any? :O!

I really am dealing with the two most unintelligent people on this forum.
One ignores pure facts in order to support his own opinion, and the other provides claims to which he ignores calls for prove because he knows there is none and doesnt want to back down :L Funny.
Okay, so you claim to have read a book on the subject, but instead of quoting said book you pull a number out of thin air and then claim this makes your argument more valid?

You then make the extremely unfair assumption that zoophiles abuse the animals that they have relations with, this assumption is made without any evidence. Yes some zoophiles will abuse the animals, but lots of people abuse animals, you have yet to prove any link between zoophilia and abuse of the animal.

Lots of heterosexual relationships are abusive, does this make all heterosexual relations wrong? no , of course it doesn't. It is exactly the same with zoophilia.

This rest of your post is just flame, so therefore not worth commenting on.
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! (377)
37.44%
No - but I will (77)
7.65%
No - I don't want to (71)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (482)
47.86%

Watched Threads

View All