Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Yes it bloody does mean they are less valid! We eat them don't we? Why is it we are allowed to eat baby pigs and sheep but have to give f*cking dogs and cats rights?? We have taken them out of the wild to be our pets haven't we? I know they are domesticated but my point is their role in our lives as pets are to make us happy. Yes they think. So? Doesn't affect my argument at all!
    i wasnt saying that sheep and pigs didnt have rights... in the same way that they have to be kept in conditions that will not mentalls harm them during their life until slaughter, should animals not have the right to avoid occurances during their lives that would mentally harm them ??

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    And no I said nothing of the sort, dumbass!!! Children are humans and we are humans, right? So to maintain civilised human behaviour and to make the world a better place, you must impose laws to protect it? I don't need to lecture you about why paedophillia isn't acceptable, plus I already f*cking said it.. OOHHH you hippies are making me real mad!!!
    strange... i seem to remember typing

    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    mentally inept adult
    how you get from ADULT to paedophillia is beyond me... and yet you call me "dumbass" :confused:

    in addition, your whole argument seems to be based upon the fact that humans are superior, and therefore have the right to do as they wish with animals... bening superior does not give us he right to abuse, but instead, the responsibility to look after...

    also, the idea is to INTELLIGENTLY debate an issue, attacking peoples points of view... not attacking them with language like "dumbass" and "hippies"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Yes it bloody does mean they are less valid! We eat them don't we? Why is it we are allowed to eat baby pigs and sheep but have to give f*cking dogs and cats rights?? We have taken them out of the wild to be our pets haven't we? I know they are domesticated but my point is their role in our lives as pets are to make us happy. Yes they think. So? Doesn't affect my argument at all!

    And no I said nothing of the sort, dumbass!!! Children are humans and we are humans, right? So to maintain civilised human behaviour and to make the world a better place, you must impose laws to protect it? I don't need to lecture you about why paedophillia isn't acceptable, plus I already f*cking said it.. OOHHH you hippies are making me real mad!!!
    Sheeps and pigs are bred to be eaten, since when are dogs and cats bred to be fu**ed?
    Excuse the language but your ignorance really does infuriate me.

    And we're not hippies... I know for a fact. Since I know myself. And I know who you're referring to as a hippy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)


    how you get from ADULT to paedophillia is beyond me... and yet you call me "dumbass" :confused:
    I think calamity jane is obsessed with it... They're bringing it up all the time, yet it has nothing to do with zoophillia...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Since animal cruelty has been mentioned I would like to know how severe the penalties are. I'm guessing they're not as harsg if you did the same acts against another human being.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    It's not pathetic, I ask for your views so I can debate about it (hence the title of this friggin forum). And I'm not disagreeing with everything you say just to make me feel right. I genuinely don't agree with many of our views and want to know why you think the way you do(but agreed on some).

    Ok first thing, if the dog raped then shows anger and attacks a human then of course it should be outlawed because it poses harm to humans!!! If however the dog will not show harm to humans then why should it be banned. Dogs are incapable of feeling violated or used, or feel they need to go on a first date before they have sex.

    Secondly, you must remember my point about the whole point of law as against abuse! If people harm animals then first and foremost people find it disturbing (again law imposed for the good of humans) and enjoying sadism is unhealthy and dangerous (for humans again).

    And panda and tigers aren't protected because you find them cute or want to see them happy in the wild. There are scientific reasons why animals are protected. One main reason is to maintain gentic diversity (by having a huge gene pool will allow genetic research to go further e.g. plant science, animal genetics, diseases etc.) - and my biology teacher told me that so do't bother arguing. And if you think about it(with you complete lack of biology underatnding) insects being protected is not absurd for that very reason.
    I'm sure tourism and politics and PR played a big part in China's decision to have a death penalty for killing pandas. Plus decisions like this keeps most people happy as they prefer not to see suffering or know that suffering is going on. And you might then say well why don't keep them in captivity and breed them to maintain numbers? Well thats exactly what happening to tigers and pandas. And scientists have to be careful as this could cause a domino effect on ecosystems.


    I already bloody said! If your pet is raped you should be given right to claim compensation or take legal action because it is affecting your well being!

    And your argument seems to be based on animal's should be given the same basic rights to happiness just because they have a brain and exhibit feelings similar to humans. But why does the RSPCA put down animals when no-one wants to buy them within 2 months? You keep repeating your point of how would you like it if your pet was molested and I keep churning out the same answer!

    You just have to face it, dosmetic animls are there for our needs/wants of feeling affection. Zoophilles have a strange and gross sexual orientation that I could never like thinking about it or be ok with it. But their attorney (if arguing in court) could argue validly that if the animal does not pose threat to humans and did not cause psycholoical damage to other humans then why disallow it? I don't know if that decision was based on keeping everyone happy (like the law about gay marriages) but I still don't see a good reason for it other than that.

    Anyone's thoughts please ( I wish the law students would come abck and discuss this with me.....)
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Why should we care for them??? You don't seem to provide a reason for caring for them? Why should they have rights??? I have at least given you a proper reason for their given 'rights'

    And no I am not obsessed with paedophillia. I misread 'inept adults' the point made by mr homosexual and have stated that. And I apologise to you all, but I too was frustrated. I will refrain from calling you names from now on


    To summarise,
    1. Animals rights laws are put in place because people can't help but sympathise with animals when they see them suffering so laws protecting their well being prevents people having to feel this unecessarrily. My example about torture and abuse is to demonstate the possible consequences of allowing abuse towards animals (allowing dangerous behavioiur to manefest).

    2. I agree that if sex with the animal does cause harm to it/ causes dangerous behaviour towards other people, it should be banned (but you nor I have good evidence for this). A law being instigated for this reason is reasonable to me.

    3. However, your understanding of animals rights in my view is still flawed. Both Fleff and Mr Homosexual's reason for this is 'they have feelings' or 'we have a duty to care for them (only if not doing that will results in our well being compromised e.g loss of valuable genome).


    Fleff if the animal doesn't how signs of psychological damage, is beastility ok? Similarly if i can't prove the animal has been psychologically damaged,how can you prove the opposite? On this issue I feel this is the only place where we bump heads but in animal rights we diagree on an array of things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    It's not pathetic, I ask for your views so I can debate about it (hence the title of this friggin forum). And I'm not disagreeing with everything you say just to make me feel right. I genuinely don't agree with many of our views and want to know why you think the way you do(but agreed on some).
    What would be the way I think? That I feel it's wrong for someone to rape an animal?

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Ok first thing, if the dog raped then shows anger and attacks a human then of course it should be outlawed because it poses harm to humans!!! If however the dog will not show harm to humans then why should it be banned. Dogs are incapable of feeling violated or used, or feel they need to go on a first date before they have sex.
    My point was that the dog's problems would be caused by a human. Therefore that human indirectly caused harm to another human. Get it? No? Oh well. It's obviously above you.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Secondly, you must remember my point about the whole point of law as against abuse! If people harm animals then first and foremost people find it disturbing (again law imposed for the good of humans) and enjoying sadism is unhealthy and dangerous (for humans again).
    Excuse me, I think I actually said that animals have rights to stop humans from abusing them. What are you on about? Sadism is between 2 consenting adults, and has nothing to do with this arguement. We are talking about people who enjoy sexual activities with animals, not human sex.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    And panda and tigers aren't protected because you find them cute or want to see them happy in the wild.
    I know. You said that animals have rights/are protected for the good of the human kind. I don't quite see how me trying to contradict this makes you assume I think that they are protected because we like the look of them...

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    There are scientific reasons why animals are protected. One main reason is to maintain gentic diversity (by having a huge gene pool will allow genetic research to go further e.g. plant science, animal genetics, diseases etc.) - and my biology teacher told me that so do't bother arguing. And if you think about it(with you complete lack of biology underatnding) insects being protected is not absurd for that very reason.
    I actually have a huge understanding of biology, it comes naturally to me, and I'm planning to do a degree in a biology related subject, so please don't try to insult me if you're completely ignorant on whether or not I'm any good at biology. You think I don't know why animals are protected? You can think what you like...
    Insects being protected from children, is pathetic, how exactly would they enforce it? And what would the punishment be? How would you know if your kid went out playing and pulled the wings off a fly? Because that's what they were talking about. THAT is absurd, as there is absolutely no way of enforcing it, and there's hardly any point as insects are very prolific. What would the punishment be? I know, you could ground them for a month for pulling one wing off a fly, 2 months if they pull them both off, and a further month if more damage is done to the victim in question :rolleyes: Please, wake up to the real world.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    I'm sure tourism and politics and PR played a big part in China's decision to have a death penalty for killing pandas. Plus decisions like this keeps most people happy as they prefer not to see suffering or know that suffering is going on.And you might then say well why don't keep them in captivity and breed them to maintain numbers? Well thats exactly what happening to tigers and pandas. And scientists have to be careful as this could cause a domino effect on ecosystems.
    How did China get involved? I'm talking about endangered species in general. They are protected. You are saying that they are protected solely to HELP the human race. How exactly?
    Do you think I'm a copmplete idiot or something? Of course I know endangered species are bred in captivity.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    I already bloody said! If your pet is raped you should be given right to claim compensation or take legal action because it is affecting your well being!
    My well bieng? I don't care about my well bieng. If my dog was raped I'd be annoyed because it would cause psychological effects on the dog, not on me.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    And your argument seems to be based on animal's should be given the same basic rights to happiness just because they have a brain and exhibit feelings similar to humans. But why does the RSPCA put down animals when no-one wants to buy them within 2 months? You keep repeating your point of how would you like it if your pet was molested and I keep churning out the same answer!
    Not the same rights, but they have rights. They have a right not to be abused by humans.
    You haven't actually answered how you'd feel, you've said what legal action could be taken. That is not the answer I'm looking for.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    You just have to face it, dosmetic animls are there for our needs/wants of feeling affection. Zoophilles have a strange and gross sexual orientation that I could never like thinking about it or be ok with it. But their attorney (if arguing in court) could argue validly that if the animal does not pose threat to humans and did not cause psycholoical damage to other humans then why disallow it? I don't know if that decision was based on keeping everyone happy (like the law about gay marriages) but I still don't see a good reason for it other than that.

    Yes, pets are bought for pleasure, not sexual pleasure though. There are things called blow up dolls for that... The fact still remains that sex with an animal is abuse, and whether or not a person owns that animal makes no difference, it is still abuse. It causes psychological damage to the animal, not the human, the animal, even if it does not become a danger to humans, that animal has a psychological problem that was caused by someone raping it. That is my point. You don't seem able to grasp it, though, so I don't see any point in continuing this debate.

    Are we talking ethical values, or justice? Either way, I still think it's wrong for a person to take advantage of an animal in a sexual nature, or any other way, this is abuse, and abuse in my mind is wrong, in your mind zoophiles have an excuse to do it.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Answers to your qs fleff:

    1. Yeah and if you read the thread that followed that would be answered. And what if the animal was the owners, so what if it was psychologically disturbed? Who and why would anyone do anything about it?
    2. And sorry didn't know sadism only applied to humans. i thought it only meant liking harming something else. But you get my point about how it could develop into something deeper.
    3. Well maintaining genetic diveristy fot gene technology is only for improving our of lives so our advantage (some biologist you'd make). For what other reason would people do it?
    4. The dog's well being affects your well being. If it didn't then it wouldn't affect you at all (talk about not understanding things)
    5. Everything people want do (including helping animals) is for the good of the human kind whether that be making you happy or advancing technology!
    6. If you want to parade around giving animals rights, not willing to admit that if YOU woke up, you'd realise that you've just become too emotionally attached to a dumb dog/cat/horse or whatever!

    I don't think I'm being ignorant, I'm just arguing! What you're supposed to do on this forum! Fleff hasn't even tried to see it from my perspective and all she does is repeat her self and make unfunny, *****y sarcastic remarks.

    I would welcome anyone to continue this with me by PM me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    The fact still remains that sex with an animal is abuse, and whether or not a person owns that animal makes no difference, it is still abuse. It causes psychological damage to the animal, not the human, the animal, even if it does not become a danger to humans, that animal has a psychological problem that was caused by someone raping it.
    How do you know that? Don't say that it is obvious because to be honest it really isn't. Can you provide me with a source which states that animals who have sexual relationships with humans suffer psychological damage. I don't mean relationships where there are other factors such as beating or sex which causes them pain I mean sexual relationships which aren't causing the animals physical pain or discomfort that the animal may even be initiating.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Exactly! She doesn't know that and I don't know that either. She just assumes so because her dog has trauma (apparently).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calamity jane)
    Answers to your qs fleff:

    1. Yeah and if you read the thread that followed that would be answered. And what if the animal was the owners, so what if it was psychologically disturbed? Who and why would anyone do anything about it?
    Why? Because they care for it? I thought that's what the RSPCA was for, to help animals, yes, after 2 months they put the animal down if no-one claims it/buys it, but at least they give it a chance rather than just saying, 'it's an animal, it doesn't matter'. I posted my reply before reading your following post, it took me a while to put my post together, so in the time I was doing that, you'd posted again, which is why I asked questions which you'd already answered in the post above mine: I had clicked on the quote button before that was posted.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    2. And sorry didn't know sadism only applied to humans. i thought it only meant liking harming something else. But you get my point about how it could develop into something deeper.
    Yes, I do get your point, sorry

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    3. Well maintaining genetic diveristy fot gene technology is only for improving our of lives so our advantage (some biologist you'd make). For what other reason would people do it?
    Perhaps that they don't see why humans should rule the world, when there are other animals who deserve to live just as much as we do. I'm not talking just about scientists here, I'm thinking along the lines of protesters in the streets shouting "save our >insert animal<". They are not all scientists. Personally if I ever saved an animals life, I wouldn't think, 'I'm doing this because it will stop the gene pool from decreasing' I'd do it because it is a life, whether or not that life is human, canine, feline, that is what I would think. Not the gene pool.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    4. The dog's well being affects your well being. If it didn't then it wouldn't affect you at all (talk about not understanding things)
    So I misunderstood one point that you made, in general, I can understand where you are coming from, I just don't agree with it. What I've gathered is that you find an animals life worthless unless it can help the human race. Which is a point of view I can understand, but not agree with.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    5. Everything people want do (including helping animals) is for the good of the human kind whether that be making you happy or advancing technology!
    So there is no selfless act in the world then. You speak of the human kind as a whole, I don't see it that way, I guess our views are just too different.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    6. If you want to parade around giving animals rights, not willing to admit that if YOU woke up, you'd realise that you've just become too emotionally attached to a dumb dog/cat/horse or whatever!
    Not all dogs/cats/horses are dumb.
    I've woken up already, I'd be very upset if my dog dies in the near future since I've grown up with it since I was 5. That's 11 years of my life that I'm used to waking up, seeing him there, wagging his tail, feeling happy. We've taken my dog on holiday with us because no one could look after him, so a lot of the time if I remember things from a holiday I remember my dog, I have become emotionally attached, I'll admit it, I'm a sucker for puppy dog eyes. But if you can't understand that feeling, then there's no point in me saying all this, because you could never understand it. Compared to many people though, I'm hardly emotionally attached at all, for instance I would never buy my dog a £100,000 collar with diamond studs, which people do. THAT is TOO emotionally attached, in my opinion.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    I don't think I'm being ignorant, I'm just arguing! What you're supposed to do on this forum! Fleff hasn't even tried to see it from my perspective and all she does is repeat her self and make unfunny, *****y sarcastic remarks.
    Yes, that is what you're supposed to do on this forum, I too, am doing that.
    I have tried to see it from your perspective, I can't argue with someone unless I can see it from their perspective. I guess you just don't like animals as much as I do, like I said before: I guess you're not an animal lover. Obviously I am. Sorry for the ignorant thing. Although that last bit seems as if you're playing it to an audience, in my opinion. I didn't start the *****y remarks, I don't think, you stated that I had no understanding of biology, which is infact my best subject, parallel with art, so understandably I got annoyed.

    (Original post by calamity jane)
    I would welcome anyone to continue this with me by PM me.
    Too bad, I guess this debate is over then...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    How do you know that? Don't say that it is obvious because to be honest it really isn't. Can you provide me with a source which states that animals who have sexual relationships with humans suffer psychological damage. I don't mean relationships where there are other factors such as beating or sex which causes them pain I mean sexual relationships which aren't causing the animals physical pain or discomfort that the animal may even be initiating.
    Thinking about the size of a human penis, and the size of the anal passage in an average dog/cat, or the size of the vagina, I would have to assume it would cause it pain. I can't imagine how it couldn't. No, I can't provide you with a source, it's not one of those things I normally look up on the internet, or buy a book about. Can you provide a source stating that they do not, in any circumstance, suffer any damage, physically or psychologically?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    Thinking about the size of a human penis, and the size of the anal passage in an average dog/cat, or the size of the vagina, I would have to assume it would cause it pain. I can't imagine how it couldn't. No, I can't provide you with a source, it's not one of those things I normally look up on the internet, or buy a book about. Can you provide a source stating that they do not, in any circumstance, suffer any damage, physically or psychologically?
    I clearly specified in cases where the animal is not being hurt and there are cases like than I am sure. Having read the starting article it is obvious that Sex doesn't have to mean intercorse and even when it does from my understanding it is not unusual for the human to be on the recieving end. There are people who have relationships with horse for example how can you say that a human penis will hurt a horse. You said that it cause psychological damage and I just want to know if there is any evidence of this ( in the case where there is no physical damage) I have said that sometimes Physical pain will be caused to the animal and in cases like this it isn't acceptable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I clearly specified in cases where the animal is not being hurt and there are cases like than I am sure. Having read the starting article it is obvious that Sex doesn't have to mean intercorse and even when it does from my understanding it is not unusual for the human to be on the recieving end. There are people who have relationships with horse for example how can you say that a human penis will hurt a horse. You said that it cause psychological damage and I just want to know if there is any evidence of this ( in the case where there is no physical damage) I have said that sometimes Physical pain will be caused to the animal and in cases like this it isn't acceptable.
    It seems as if you are speaking of zoophilia in seperate cases, i.e. sex with a horse = acceptable, sex with a dog = not acceptable, whereas I'm talking about it as a whole. I just can't see how it's acceptable for someone to have sex with an animal. I understand that in many cases it wouldn't cause pain, but for me to accept it, it would have to be 100% of cases not causing pain/psychological damage, which would never happen, therefore I'll never be able to accept it. I don't know if there are any cases where no pain was caused, but psychological damage was, if you are willing to search around for it, be my guest, but I'm on a computer that is used by both my parents, and my sister, and I get the feeling that if they saw what I'd been searching for they wouldn't be too happy. If I'm proved wrong in the psychological area, I still have ethical values to go on
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    It seems as if you are speaking of zoophilia in seperate cases, i.e. sex with a horse = acceptable, sex with a dog = not acceptable, whereas I'm talking about it as a whole. I just can't see how it's acceptable for someone to have sex with an animal. I understand that in many cases it wouldn't cause pain, but for me to accept it, it would have to be 100% of cases not causing pain/psychological damage, which would never happen, therefore I'll never be able to accept it. I don't know if there are any cases where no pain was caused, but psychological damage was, if you are willing to search around for it, be my guest, but I'm on a computer that is used by both my parents, and my sister, and I get the feeling that if they saw what I'd been searching for they wouldn't be too happy. If I'm proved wrong in the psychological area, I still have ethical values to go on
    Like I said before this is something that we are not going to agree on so we should probably give up. I am also on a family computer so I am not going to search until I can get onto my laptop.

    But I will leave you with this. The whole definition of someone who practices Zooaphillia is that they love animals it isn't just a case of useing the animal so satisfy their sexual needs they actually love these animals. Now if you love someone/ thing then you don't want to cause it pain or suffering. There are going to be people who sexually abuse animals causing them pain ect maybe even ripping parts of them ect. These are the people that need to be targeted, just as the majority of pet owners are loving towards there animals but some are physically abusive and these are the people that need to be prosecuted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Like I said before this is something that we are not going to agree on so we should probably give up. I am also on a family computer so I am not going to search until I can get onto my laptop.

    But I will leave you with this. The whole definition of someone who practices Zooaphillia is that they love animals it isn't just a case of useing the animal so satisfy their sexual needs they actually love these animals. Now if you love someone/ thing then you don't want to cause it pain or suffering. There are going to be people who sexually abuse animals causing them pain ect maybe even ripping parts of them ect. These are the people that need to be targeted, just as the majority of pet owners are loving towards there animals but some are physically abusive and these are the people that need to be prosecuted.
    I think that's a good idea

    I realise that they do love the animal, and I can sort of... empathise (I suppose) but I still find it wrong.
    *sigh* Agree to disagree, then
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    For the sake of animal lovers becoming too attached to animals your views make perfect sense but for the sake of justifying a law, I feel 'to protect people who have strong empathy to animals from being emotionally hurt' is not good enough.

    Though it's nice to feel for an animal and care for it, I still feel that they are still an object for us to use (as evil as that sounds). And there is no justice in the animal kingdom I'm afraid. We have out evolved them. Their 'intelligence' shouldn't be a consideration in our actions though it does evoke empathy and it is often hard to overcome the parralel between their expressions and ours.

    Yes in my view no logical act is selfless (even protecting an animal makes you feel good therefore you have gained and therefore selfish. Would you feed yourself to a dying, starving but beautiful mountain bear?).

    It is not necesary for people to feel such empathy for animals but most people choose to because it often makes you feel good.

    Can I just wrap this up by saying that I HAVE had pets before (guinea pigs and hamster awww.....) and they were the cutest things I've ever seen (and so funny). And I cried my eyes out when they died (all four of them). So I'm not heartless or made of stone (oh I had budgies too but they weren't so cute. Damn things kept nipping me) Good we understand each other now. (Sigh)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    How do you know that? Don't say that it is obvious because to be honest it really isn't. Can you provide me with a source which states that animals who have sexual relationships with humans suffer psychological damage. I don't mean relationships where there are other factors such as beating or sex which causes them pain I mean sexual relationships which aren't causing the animals physical pain or discomfort that the animal may even be initiating.
    Can you provide me with a source which states that animals who have sexual relationships with humans do not suffer psychological damage? They can't communicate with us, so we can't know. The best option is to err on the side of caution.

    And there is still the crucial and linked issue of consent. Non-human mammals are sentient beings but unlike humans, they are not capable of rational, higher thought. Even if the animal has initiated the encounter, it is the human that is in control and able to withdraw from the situation.

    Humans have a responsibility of care to animals. Animals do have rights, which are protected legally. This includes animals used in medical research and those bred for food. A basic right is that of bodily integrity and protection from unecessary interference. Surely by any standards, a sexual encounter with an animal, which has been encouraged by a human, would constitute unecessary interference?

    The question of 'love' is also a bit misleading. Although the human may think they 'love' a particular animal, can that love genuinely be considered to be reciprocal, when we have no way of communicating with the animal? Again, the safest option would be to err on the side of caution.

    Abuse can be defined as harm inflicted on a living creature through physical, verbal, emotional, or sexual means. Actual physical pain does not need to be inflicted, in order for abuse to occur. The inappropriate use of an animal as a sexual object can thereby be classified as abuse within those terms, even if the animal has not suffered physically.

    As with zoophiles, some paedophiles groom their victims and honestly believe they are involved in a consensual, loving relationship with a child. It may well be that, 'if you love someone/thing then you don't want to cause it pain or suffering,' but in this instance, society is the judge, not the individual. The same goes for bestiality. There are limits to individual liberty, after all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    They can't communicate with us, so we can't know.
    You haven't heard of humans being able to 'talk' to animals have you? I remember seeing someone on TV who knew a few things about thus tortoise and he hadn't been htere before like it had arthritis etc. Spooky.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This has to be the weirdest thread i have ever read. I can't believe 11 of you think it's actually OK to f*ck animals. "As long as they're in a loving, fully-consentual relationship, make each other scrambled eggs once in a while, and no one gets hurt..." URGGH! Get a grip! If the very though of it doesn't make you want chunder-up your carrot-infested innards they're something seriously, SERIOUSLY amiss.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 9, 2004
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.