# Man has sex with dogs and possibly a horse



## sanx021 (Jun 23, 2011)

> Activists are pushing Ohio lawmakers to make bestiality a felony in the wake of allegations a Shelby man had sex with three pet dogs, and possibly a horse.
> 
> Peter Bower was charged in May with two counts of animal cruelty, authorities said.
> 
> ...



I don't think making these disgusting acts a felony will stop the likes of such subhumans... These sickos will not reconsider their actions right before fondling a horse, sheep or fido. Certain things you can't legislate...


----------



## Level7N00b (Jun 23, 2011)

Can't believe I live in this state.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 23, 2011)

WHAT THE FUCK


----------



## Kyousuke (Jun 23, 2011)

The fuck is with these articles today?


----------



## Kahvehane (Jun 23, 2011)

Article said:
			
		

> Authorities also discovered a book about bestiality, "Dearest Pet," along with *a plastic, blowup sheep*, KAIT 8 News reported.



I... I don't even... that's... what in the _fuck_!?


----------



## Summoner (Jun 23, 2011)

jesus fucking christ, people are getting crazier and crazier by the day


----------



## Colderz (Jun 23, 2011)

Judge: Why did you sexual intercourse with this horse
Defendent: Well you see sir, It was summer and I had nothing to do.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jun 23, 2011)

Colderz said:


> Judge: Why did you sexual intercourse with this horse
> Defendent: Well you see sir, It was summer and I had nothing to do.



Probably had sex with the horse at the end of a cliff as well.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

So murdering animals in the millions against their will is alrighty, but having sex with them is disgusting and should be punished with harsh prison sentences?

Double standards say hi.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So murdering animals in the millions against their will is alrighty, but having sex with them is disgusting and should be punished with harsh prison sentences?
> 
> Double standards say hi.


are you serious?


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 23, 2011)

As long as the animals are at the age of consent it's all right.


And that's like 3 in dog years. Hot loli dog years.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2011)

cnorwood said:


> are you serious?



I don't... think so?


----------



## kazuri (Jun 23, 2011)

> jesus fucking christ, people are getting crazier and crazier by the day



Yep, this has to be true because any sane person would realize this has gone on since animals have been domesticated.


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So murdering animals in the millions against their will is alrighty, but having sex with them is disgusting and should be punished with harsh prison sentences?
> 
> Double standards say hi.



*OMG this is made for a sig............*


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2011)

Colderz said:


> Judge: Why did you sexual intercourse with this horse
> Defendent: Well you see sir, It was summer and I had nothing to do.



I HAD TO DO SOMETHING WHILE I WAS BANNED FROM THE OBD


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 23, 2011)

Lebron Flocka James said:


> *OMG this is made for a sig............*



sigged      .


----------



## Mexicano27 (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## Skywalker (Jun 23, 2011)

The things people have sex with nowadays.


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)

Wait...what is this from?


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 23, 2011)

Skywalker said:


> The things people have sex with nowadays.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2011)

Subarashii said:


> Wait...what is this from?



The Shining.


----------



## Skywalker (Jun 23, 2011)

.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 23, 2011)

What kind of sick fuck would have sex with that monstrosity?


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)

Stunna said:


> The Shining.



It's all coming back to me now.


----------



## Jay. (Jun 23, 2011)

Don't judge him- I bet he's a nice guy


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Jun 23, 2011)

cnorwood said:


> sigged      .



*mother fucker...........................*


----------



## gtw1983 (Jun 23, 2011)

As long as they stay away from kids they can have all the dogs and horses they want


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Jun 23, 2011)

Sora said:


> Me ​



*were you get your gifs from..............*


----------



## Miss Fortune (Jun 23, 2011)

Level7N00b said:


> Can't believe I live in this state.



I share your shame.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jun 23, 2011)

It's kind of a sad day when bestiality has become such a problem that it has to be upgraded to a felony. :amazed



> Ohio does not have any laws specifically dealing with bestiality, something one resident hopes to change.



And they seriously had no laws on the books before? 



sanx021 said:


> I don't think making these disgusting acts a felony will stop the likes of such subhumans... These sickos will not reconsider their actions right before fondling a horse, sheep or fido. Certain things you can't legislate...



Probably true, but then again, the mere existence of laws usually doesn't deter those who are most determined to do something. There are a lot of laws, by their very nature, that can only be enforced *after* a crime has been committed, and a "felony" classification would at least let them put these people away longer.

The only other thing I would add to it is some measure to get these folks some help. 



> Police say a search of his home turned up photos of him having sex with animals, as well as stories he posted online about his perverted acts.







> Authorities also discovered a book about bestiality, "Dearest Pet," along with a plastic, blowup sheep, KAIT 8 News reported.



So he couldn't stick with blow-up dolls, or maybe pumpkins? 

Somehow, this topic just keeps getting more and more disgusting...


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jun 23, 2011)

Lebron Flocka James said:


> *OMG this is made for a sig............*



Doing that right nao.

This guy has serious problems.


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)

Jay. said:


> Don't judge him- I bet he's a nice guy



Until he wants to fuck _your_ dog.


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Jun 23, 2011)

Miss Fortune said:


> I share your shame.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epP7i7unWdU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Jun 23, 2011)

Utopia Realm said:


> Doing that right nao.
> 
> This guy has serious problems.



*Your late some other guy got it.............*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

cnorwood said:


> are you serious?



Why wouldn't I be? Requiring consent for sexual intercourse with a being that can be enslaved and/or killed without its consent is just plain ridiculous.


----------



## Araku Karakai (Jun 23, 2011)

Was it really necessary to share this disgusting story?  Chances are, you already know what we're going to say about it.


----------



## Sophie (Jun 23, 2011)

This guy needs to be buried under the prison. This is sick.Disturbing and simply disgusting. People getting crazier every single day...


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Why wouldn't I be? Requiring consent for sexual intercourse with a being that can be enslaved and/or killed without its consent is just plain ridiculous.


Humans can be enslaved and/or killed without consent.


----------



## JellyButter (Jun 23, 2011)

> Authorities also discovered a book about bestiality, "Dearest Pet," along with a *plastic, blowup sheep*, KAIT 8 News reported.



That was enough for me to read.


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)

Araku Karakai said:


> Was it really necessary to share this disgusting story? We all have the same opinion about it.



This is much less disgusting than man in a port a potty.
But sweet jesus when will people stop putting their dicks into anything with a hole?!?!?!?!


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jun 23, 2011)

On the bright side, one less idiot removed from the genepool.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)

makeoutparadise said:


> [sp][/sp]



No! 
That is cute and this article is sick!
Cute hugging animals =/= bestiality!


----------



## Yoshimura Sumimura (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Jun 23, 2011)

My brain is burning.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 23, 2011)

what, who gives a fuck, you don't know that the animals didn't consent.  animals don't just let themselves get fucked, they can fight back. now if he forcibly raped the animal that's kind of cruel.  

i swear i've seen interspecies animals fool around with each other, do they consider it a felony? the fuck man.  

it is shit nasty though.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 23, 2011)

Oh Pilaf. I knew this was your work


----------



## Yoshimura Sumimura (Jun 23, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> what, who gives a fuck, you don't know that the animals didn't consent. animals don't just let themselves get fucked, they can fight back. now if he forcibly raped the animal that's kind of cruel.
> 
> i swear i've seen interspecies animals fool around with each other, do they consider it a felony? the fuck man.
> 
> it is shit nasty though.


----------



## tinhamodic (Jun 23, 2011)

gtw1983 said:


> As long as they stay away from kids they can have all the dogs and horses they want



You forgot to add and other peoples beloved pets.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Humans can be enslaved and/or killed without consent.



No, they cannot. Slavery is illegal in every country that has something resembling a government and so is murder.


----------



## Yoshimura Sumimura (Jun 23, 2011)

Ive cought a Sexual act between a bear and a Child.


----------



## Chibason (Jun 23, 2011)

When asked for a response, the defendant yelled back ,_"Bitch you dont love me..you just love my doggy style"_


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, they cannot. Slavery is illegal in every country that has something resembling a government and so is murder.


People do illegal stuff without consent all the time.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

Stunna said:


> People do illegal stuff without consent all the time.



Umm, what the fuck are you talking about?

Yes they do, but it's still illegal, just what the hell are you trying to argue here?


----------



## Talon. (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## kazuri (Jun 23, 2011)

It never stops amazing me how stupid so many people here are. You really think this is 'new'? You really think people are getting 'crazier'?

Having sex with an animal is only another way to describe atoms touching other atoms. And so long as none of those atoms are getting hurt when they don't want to, theres nothing wrong or disgusting with it.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 23, 2011)

sophietje said:


> This guy needs to be buried under the prison. This is sick.Disturbing and simply disgusting. People getting crazier every single day...



People have been having sex with farm animals ever since they were first domesticated. This is hardly new nor shocking.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 23, 2011)

i didnt know we had people in here who like getting the peanut butter licked off their dicks by a dog aka animalphiles


----------



## kazuri (Jun 23, 2011)

You don't have to do/like something to not be dumb enough to think other people who do and like it, shouldn't do or like it.

Common sense.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jun 23, 2011)

I'm staying far away from genitalia that penetrated anything not from the human race.
But Im not sure where this is going, it might be legal to in a 50 years or sooo.
I think the conservative side of things keeps America from turning into a Sodom and Gomorrah or becoming a pig stt.hthjoehyye.

So is this  on reason why we have stds?


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Are you familiar with the idea of consent? Get out a dictionary, educate yourself, realize that you've made a complete fool of yourself, apologize for being stupid.



If you think the only way of understanding consent is through a verbal agreement your the one who should apologize for being stupid.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

cnorwood said:


> i didnt know we had people in here who like getting the peanut butter licked off their dicks by a dog aka animalphiles



I didn't see any, care to point them out for the rest of us?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> If you think the only way of understanding consent is through a verbal agreement your the one who should apologize for being stupid.



Sentience is necessary for consent, which eliminates 99.9% of all animals and an established form of communication is necessary to make that consent legally clear, which eliminates any animals except homo sapiens.


----------



## emROARS (Jun 23, 2011)

and they call us welsh disgusting.


----------



## gtw1983 (Jun 23, 2011)

tinhamodic said:


> You forgot to add and other peoples beloved pets.



Agreed.
But the dude can molest all the strays he wants.Animal shelters right down the road.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Sentience is necessary for consent, which eliminates 99.9% of all animals and an established form of communication is necessary to make that consent legally clear, which eliminates any animals except homo sapiens.


If you think the consent required for a human and the consent required for an animal are the same at anything at all are the same your mad.

Comparing the standards of one species to another is stupid.
Going even further dogs are hardly so stupid that.

Our laws are made based on our perspectives, not a dog's perspective, not a chicken's perspective, not a roach's perspective.

Going even further you might as well proove that in any act of beastiality that the animal itself was harmed.
Women have fucked animals before, oh wait scratch that, animals have fucked women before. Would there need to be consent in that situation or is it not fucking obvious.

When a Dolphin rapes another Dolphin does the world stop to catch the rapist Dolphin and put them in a jail? Puh lease this shit only matters when consent is missing between two humans. Anyone Crying foul might as well Cry foul for any other sexuality.


----------



## ragnara (Jun 23, 2011)

> "If this had been a child, there would have been an uproar about it," Joyce Fields told the Mansfield News Journal. "*There isn't much difference* because this pet didn't accept or consent to what he was doing. That makes it wrong."



While it's obviously disgusting, comparing what he did to raping human children goes too far.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> If you think the consent required for a human and the consent required for an animal are the same at anything at all are the same your mad.
> 
> Comparing the standards of one species to another is stupid.
> Going even further dogs are hardly so stupid that.
> ...



Are you retarded? Get your moving the goal fallacy out of here, this has nothing to do with your original comparison of bestiality and homosexuality.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jun 23, 2011)

when I think of laws in humanity, it might have a very good reason that you partygoers don't notice.
We don't have consideration for other animals because they are not from our race, if each race was competitive, i bet they wouldn't give a shit about us either unless we have were built to support their race. 
Why do we need to care about what they do and justify deviant behavior from them, we aren't typical animals that go through the same things. We are very advanced compared to any animal. And I guess this all comes out what is best for humanity. 
Yes I'm saying we are more advance than them, just like any popular clique that looks down on nerds. We worked hard to get into this spot, we don't need to become 
degenerates. Yes that is very mean, but anyone who can't follow might as well be an outcast or become a leader that could change humanity for beneficial reasons.

Kids, sodomy is wrong.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Are you retarded? Get your moving the goal fallacy out of here, this has nothing to do with your original comparison of bestiality and homosexuality.


Oh please get your head out of your ass.
The original post was a joking play on homosexuality, but your tongue knows no bounds.

If a person wants to go fuck a dog, let them, why the fuck throw them in jail for fucking a dog? Might as well throw a man in jail for fucking a man, plain and simple.



> Animals can't consent, therefore you can't legally marry them. Ever.


Who the fuck cares if you can marry a dog, it's a dog.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 23, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> Oh please get your head out of your ass.
> The original post was a joking play on homosexuality, but your tongue knows no bounds.



And I showed you why it was retarded.



> If a person wants to go fuck a dog, let them, why the fuck throw them in jail for fucking a dog?



I never said anything else.



> Might as well throw a man in jail for fucking a man, plain and simple.



There's a world of difference between consensual and non-consensual sex. Understand that or GTFO.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> And I showed you why it was retarded.


No you ran your mouth at a joke, like the universal purpose of a joke is to be accurate. Oh wait it isn't.



> There's a world of difference between consensual and non-consensual sex. Understand that or GTFO.



IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING DOG.
Stop talking.


----------



## gtw1983 (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> There's a world of difference between consensual and non-consensual sex. Understand that or GTFO.



I get what you're saying.
Having sex with an animal or taking advantage of a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn't know any better;would both be considered non consensual sex.

But what is your opinion on the offenders punishment?

For instance I regard human and animal life nowhere in the same neighborhood. in my opinion the person that assaulted the Handicapped person should get a much harder sentence than a dude that banged a dog.

So even when both are non consensual,there has to be further distinction.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Umm, what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Yes they do, but it's still illegal, just what the hell are you trying to argue here?



Just showing that your original statement was incorrect.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 23, 2011)

just don't fuck the greek protest dog 



he's a fucking hero


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 23, 2011)

He doesn't need to go to prison, he needs mental help.


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> just don't fuck the greek protest dog
> 
> 
> 
> he's a fucking hero



Do you think the dog would rip him to shreds before he could whip it out?
I do.


----------



## Griever (Jun 23, 2011)

Bestiality is weird, but in the end it falls in the 'none of my damn business' category.


----------



## darkangelcel (Jun 23, 2011)

I feel very bad for those three doggies and the horse... they didn't deserve something like that ><
If the guy can't get a chick is his problem


----------



## gtw1983 (Jun 23, 2011)

darkangelcel said:


> I feel very bad for those three doggies and the horse... they didn't deserve something like that ><
> *If the guy can't get a chick is his problem*



Maybe he's not at all attracted to girls


----------



## Subarashii (Jun 23, 2011)

Griever said:


> Bestiality is weird, but in the end it falls in the 'none of my damn business' category.



Turning a blind eye is just as bad as rape  which is pretty close to what he's doing.  He could be harming the animals, which is very probable, and the animals can't give their consent therefore it's much like he's raping an invalid.


----------



## Griever (Jun 23, 2011)

Subarashii said:


> Turning a blind eye is just as bad as rape  which is pretty close to what he's doing.  He could be harming the animals, which is very probable, and the animals can't give their consent therefore it's much like he's raping an invalid.



I'm not really turning a blind eye, so much as i just don't really care what people do behind closed doors (unless it involves harming humans) And animals can defend themselves, dogs have teeth and horses.... well, you don't ever want to be kicked by a horse...


*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]DWbU0x0NVh0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 23, 2011)

Subarashii said:


> Turning a blind eye is just as bad as rape  which is pretty close to what he's doing.  He *could be* harming the animals, which is very probable, and the animals can't give their consent therefore it's much like he's raping an invalid.



He could be.
But is he.
I still don't know why people are trying to pretend consent matters in a beastiality position. If your not going to throw a dolphin in jail for raping a dolphin why throw a human in jail for raping a dolphin? Just doesn't compute.


Hmm this topic has peaked my interest in breeding.
Could these beastiality guys possibly form a hybrid with say one of the chimp/ape families like a lion and tiger can form a liger?
Did science ever check?


----------



## kazuri (Jun 23, 2011)

> He could be harming the animals, which is very probable, and the animals can't give their consent therefore it's much like he's raping an invalid.



Everything you just said is either flat out wrong, or stupid assumptions, therefore making it invalid.


----------



## Superstars (Jun 23, 2011)

Satan is always busy.


----------



## Goom (Jun 23, 2011)

Too bad the horse didn't kick a hole through his stomach =/


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 23, 2011)

Goom said:


> Too bad the horse didn't kick a hole through his stomach =/



if the horse didn't want to fuck, it would have kicked a hole in his stomach


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Jun 23, 2011)

Superstars said:


> Satan is always busy.



Busy doing what? I'm sure Satan would have more important things to do than having some man have sex with some animals.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2011)

Don't entertain him.


----------



## Kage (Jun 23, 2011)

intense therapy. a lifetime of it.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So murdering animals in the millions against their will is alrighty, but having sex with them is disgusting and should be punished with harsh prison sentences?
> 
> Double standards say hi.



Shut the fuck up.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 24, 2011)

The World said:


> Shut the fuck up.


Sir I believe it is you who should shut the fuck up.  It's not like he doesn't have a point.


----------



## King Of Gamesxx (Jun 24, 2011)

Aww that is FUCKING SICK.


----------



## Aiku (Jun 24, 2011)

Oh God.


----------



## abcd (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So murdering animals in the millions against their will is alrighty, but having sex with them is disgusting and should be punished with harsh prison sentences?
> 
> Double standards say hi.



Its simple actually, Killing animals for food is part and parcel of life (killing animals for tusks or fur is not), Having symbiotic relationship with animals (dogs for hunting, cats dont have to be trained etc) helps in our survival... So these things go into the happy part of the brain., having sex with animals on the other hand reduces the possibility of spread of our species so it switches on a subconscious hatred . Because of this people tend to invent reasons to hate it instead of just admitting the truth ( feeling "ewwwwwwwwwwww") 
 However bestiality is still a part of nature, Natures way of reacting to the overpopulation of our species (just like homosexuality) to reduce the propagation of our species.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> However bestiality is still a part of nature, Natures way of reacting to the overpopulation of our species (just like homosexuality) to reduce the propagation of our species.



care to cite the scientific findings on that or are you just blowing hot air out of your ass.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Just showing that your original statement was incorrect.



You most certainly didn't, you rambled about some completely unrelated shit. But really, that's the only thing you can do when your actual argument is that rape is worse than murder and slavery.



The World said:


> Shut the fuck up.



Does it hurt because I'm right?



abcd said:


> Its simple actually, Killing animals for food is part and parcel of life (killing animals for tusks or fur is not),



How so? Animals have been killed for thousands of years for their fur, teeth, etc. Why is that any less natural than killing them for their flesh?



> Having symbiotic relationship with animals (dogs for hunting, cats dont have to be trained etc) helps in our survival... So these things go into the happy part of the brain., having sex with animals on the other hand reduces the possibility of spread of our species so it switches on a subconscious hatred .



Cite some sources, please. People who have sex with animals don't usually hate them. Also, how does it reduce the spread of our species and how is that a bad thing?



> Because of this people tend to invent reasons to hate it instead of just admitting the truth ( feeling "ewwwwwwwwwwww")
> However bestiality is still a part of nature, Natures way of reacting to the overpopulation of our species (just like homosexuality) to reduce the propagation of our species.



Absolutely dead wrong, there no indication whatsoever that bestiality is a sexual orientation.


----------



## abcd (Jun 24, 2011)

Zabuzalives said:


> care to cite the scientific findings on that or are you just blowing hot air out of your ass.



Most of what I have said comes from this book from Carl Sagan 




Saufsoldat said:


> How so? Animals have been killed for thousands of years for their fur, teeth, etc. Why is that any less natural than killing them for their flesh?



Fur was a means of protection from rough weather and overtime had become an object of luxury, It is still something only practices by humans and rarely by any other species.



Saufsoldat said:


> Cite some sources, please. People who have sex with animals don't usually hate them. Also, how does it reduce the spread of our species and how is that a bad thing?


I never said people who have sex with animals hate them, I said the others hate them. As I mentioned the sources of this information can be found in the same book. Reducing the spread of any species is against the evolutionary need to propagate the species, This creates a subconscious fear and hatred for other people towards the practitioner.






Saufsoldat said:


> Absolutely dead wrong, there no indication whatsoever that bestiality is a sexual orientation.


Have u never heard of the term zoophilia?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> Fur was a means of protection from rough weather and overtime had become an object of luxury, It is still something only practices by humans and rarely by any other species.



Meat is a luxury as well, we don't need it anymore. Other animals don't tend to only use tiny parts of an animal for consumption either.



> I never said people who have sex with animals hate them, I said the others hate them. As I mentioned the sources of this information can be found in the same book. Reducing the spread of any species is against the evolutionary need to propagate the species, This creates a subconscious fear.



How does it reduce the spread? By that logic masturbation would be abhorred in society.



> Have u never heard of the term zoophilia?



I have, it's a paraphilia, unlike homosexuality.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> Most of what I have said comes from this book from Carl Sagan



so a hypothesis from a single scientist.  

Well here i thought you just based it on some ill understanded natural justification that fits Politically correct thinking about homosexuality. my excuses.  

adressing the hypothesis of this guy however. 
Seeing the absolute devastation plague animals can cause, and the lack of spiking rates of homosexuality there to even out their explosive growth...im highly skeptical. do you have more of his arguments? does he base this on certainr esearch? 

a preferrance of males over females is damaging biological fitness, and from a view of kin selection/group selection, asexuality would be far preferred to have evolved. 
something going wrong in early morphology. A handicapped sexuality. seems MUCH more likely to me.


----------



## abcd (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Meat is a luxury as well, we don't need it anymore. Other animals don't tend to only use tiny parts of an animal for consumption either.



You are going too deep and specific. I am talking of subconscious psychological reasons that could be responsible for treating different animals in different ways in each culture. It is more of empirical information, that should be taken with a grain of salt. Even  Sigmund Freud cannot give u specific answers to such questions.



Saufsoldat said:


> How does it reduce the spread? By that logic masturbation would be abhorred in society.



I am sure anyone with any sexual interest masturbates, Its a straw man.



Saufsoldat said:


> I have, it's a paraphilia, unlike homosexuality.



Homosexuality was considered a paraphilia till 1973.


Zabuzalives said:


> so a hypothesis from a single scientist.
> 
> Well here i thought you just based it on some ill understanded natural justification that fits Politically correct thinking about homosexuality. my excuses.
> 
> ...




The single scientist was responsible for most of our interstellar journeys and It is a peer reviewed work with more than a 100 citations on its own.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> You are going too deep and specific. I am talking of subconscious psychological reasons that could be responsible for treating different animals in different ways in each culture. It is more of empirical information, that should be taken with a grain of salt. Even  Sigmund Freud cannot give u specific answers to such questions.



Freud is completely irrelevant to modern day psychology, don't invoke him like he's any sort of authority.



> I am sure anyone with any sexual interest masturbates, Its a straw man.



It's not. People who have sex with animals don't reduce the spread of a species any more than someone who does any activity that doesn't actively aid the spread of a species.



> Homosexuality was considered a paraphilia till 1973.



And epilepsy was considered a form of demon possession until a few centuries ago, what's your point?


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> The single scientist was responsible for most of our interstellar journeys and It is a peer reviewed work with more than a 100 citations on its own.



appeal to authority. 
Darwin himself had musings that proved to be incorrect. 


Also Seeing the scope of his book, i doubt everything is as based on hard facts. 

so i ask again: on what argumentation does he react that conclusion? 
On what data? 

cause it goes against much of what i know about evolutionary principles and information of plague animals. 

I could be wrong ofcourse...but dont ask me to accept it as fact because its a big name who made a book. 

also carrying a 100 citations in such a book is not that impressive.


----------



## abcd (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Freud is completely irrelevant to modern day psychology, don't invoke him like he's any sort of authority.



You could replace his name with anyone you consider an authority in this field and my point remains.




Saufsoldat said:


> It's not. People who have sex with animals don't reduce the spread of a species any more than someone who does any activity that doesn't actively aid the spread of a species.



How would you differentiate between masturbation and a zoophile, Lets see , A zoophile/straight guy masturbates thinking about his love and makes love to his object of interest when she/it is present.



Saufsoldat said:


> And epilepsy was considered a form of demon possession until a few centuries ago, what's your point?


And zoophilia is considered as a paraphilia now. That was the point.



Zabuzalives said:


> appeal to authority.
> Darwin himself had musings that proved to be incorrect.
> 
> 
> ...



It is not appeal to authority, U asked me for citations, I gave them and u seem to feel that ur personal theory is better than peer reviewed material


----------



## tinhamodic (Jun 24, 2011)

gtw1983 said:


> Maybe he's not at all attracted to girls



Just bitches.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> You could replace his name with anyone you consider an authority in this field and my point remains.



No, it doesn't and it wouldn't matter unless you can support your point yourself. Anything more is an unproveable appeal to authority.



> How would you differentiate between masturbation and a zoophile, Lets see , A zoophile/straight guy masturbates thinking about his love and makes love to his object of interest when she/it is present.



Neither actively aids the spread of the species, yet both men are fully capable of aiding the spread of the species.



> And zoophilia is considered as a paraphilia now. That was the point.



And there's no reason to assume that this will ever change. You have no point. Masturbation was once considered a mental illness, so your argument is like saying all mental illnesses might one day be considered normal, healthy behavior. It makes no sense.


----------



## abcd (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, it doesn't and it wouldn't matter unless you can support your point yourself. Anything more is an unproveable appeal to authority.



I proved the general point using a citation, U ask specific questions for which I can either contemplate or make an empirical study, former wont be good enough and the latter is not practical for this argument.





Saufsoldat said:


> Neither actively aids the spread of the species, yet both men are fully capable of aiding the spread of the species.



I am sure one of them does.




Saufsoldat said:


> And there's no reason to assume that this will ever change. You have no point. Masturbation was once considered a mental illness, so your argument is like saying all mental illnesses might one day be considered normal, healthy behavior. It makes no sense.



U made a point and then u contradict it with 2 known examples already ? . I am sure I cannot predict the moral scenario in future but ur first post in the thread  proves that there is a starting point.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> I proved the general point using a citation, U ask specific questions for which I can either contemplate or make an empirical study, former wont be good enough and the latter is not practical for this argument.



You didn't prove anything if you cannot explain and defend the point yourself, otherwise every single argument ever would look like this "an influential person has written a book that I claim supports my point of view, that's my argument".



> I am sure one of them does.



Does what? Either use proper grammar or elaborate further.



> U made a point and then u contradict it with 2 known examples already ? . I am sure I cannot predict the moral scenario in future but ur first post in the thread  proves that there is a starting point.



I didn't contradict shit. Your argument is insane. The fact that homosexuality was once considered a paraphilia does not in any way, shape or form influence zoophilia's status as a paraphilia. *Not in any way.*

That's a shitty argument. You're basically saying since one thing was once X and is now Y, everything in X can be considered Y without presenting any supporting argument.


----------



## quizmasterG (Jun 24, 2011)

why is this even a topic... nasty


----------



## Noitora (Jun 24, 2011)

tinhamodic said:


> Just bitches.


----------



## Byakuya (Jun 24, 2011)

Yeah this is pretty gross.


----------



## Santoryu (Jun 24, 2011)

This guy been playing too much Black ops.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 24, 2011)

abcd said:


> It is not appeal to authority, U asked me for citations, I gave them and u seem to feel that ur personal theory is better than peer reviewed material



1. you make a claim

2. I ask if you have based that on anything

3. you give the book reference. 

4. I apologize for assuming you based it on nothing at all, but have some questions about the theory the book put forward. (mainly at face value: hard to explain through evolution theories and plague animal data i know of) thus asking you on what data/argumentation he bases this.....

5. you say he's a famous scientist and the book has been cited/peer reviewed.  

appeal to authority. 

what matters is the data and argumentation, else its little then a vague hypothesis.  

6. to this you say its not appeal to authority but this guy is a peer reviewed scientist and i should not act like i know better...or apparentely doubt him at all. 

more appeal to authority. 

Im asking for the data/arguments cause it seems farfetched to me. 
if you forgot and dont feel like looking it up, then say so. simple.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I have, it's a paraphilia, unlike homosexuality.



To my understanding one with zoophilia can be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual to the animal in question. Correct?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> To my understanding one with zoophilia can be homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual to the animal in question. Correct?



Um, no. I've never heard of zoophilics with a special preference for male or female animals.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 24, 2011)

If there is no distinction between the gender of the animal than zoophilia should be a sexuality in it's own, if I did not misread you said it was not.
Why wouldn't it be then?

I would assume there would be at least some people with a preferance for one specific gender of their animal in situations where the difference between the male and female of that species are clear.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You most certainly didn't, you rambled about some completely unrelated shit. But really, that's the only thing you can do when your actual argument is that rape is worse than murder and slavery.





> Why wouldn't I be? Requiring consent for sexual intercourse with a being that can be enslaved and/or killed without its consent is just plain ridiculous.


Uh, yeah. I did. That statement is completely wrong, and I provided an example to prove it. Humans can be enslaved and murdered, so according to you, requiring consent for sex would be stupid. Sucks for you to be wrong, doesn't it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> If there is no distinction between the gender of the animal than zoophilia should be a sexuality in it's own, if I did not misread you said it was not.
> Why wouldn't it be then?
> 
> I would assume there would be at least some people with a preferance for one specific gender of their animal in situations where the difference between the male and female of that species are clear.



A paraphilia does not mean exclusive interest in that certain fetish. The vast majority of zoophiles are perfectly capable of leading a normal life and have sex with other humans. This becomes more obvious when you consider other paraphilia such as podophilia (foot fetish). Nobody would claim that a foot fetish is a sexuality.

Generally, humans have a hard time even telling the difference between animal genders. We're not trained by evolution to instantly recognize the difference between a male and a female non-human, as it's just irrelevant.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

Stunna said:


> Uh, yeah. I did. That statement is completely wrong, and I provided an example to prove it. Humans can be enslaved and murdered, so according to you, requiring consent for sex would be stupid. Sucks for you to be wrong, doesn't it.



But it's not fucking legal to do so, what the hell is your problem? If murder and slavery were legal (as is the case for most non-human animals) then the law should not require the consent of those animals for sexual intercourse.

You're trying hard to look stupid here and it's quite successful, I must say.


----------



## Velocity (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> But it's not fucking legal to do so, what the hell is your problem? If murder and slavery were legal (as is the case for most non-human animals) then the law should not require the consent of those animals for sexual intercourse.
> 
> You're trying hard to look stupid here and it's quite successful, I must say.



So basically, what you're saying is... Either everyone becomes vegetarian and abstains from ever eating meat again, or we should legalise and be okay with beastiality?

Wow.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

Winny said:


> So basically, what you're saying is... Either everyone becomes vegetarian and abstains from ever eating meat again, or we should legalise and be okay with beastiality?
> 
> Wow.



That's precisely what I'm saying. As long as we're eating meat and animal products, the only reason behind a ban on bestiality is "I think it's gross therefore it should be illegal".

It's not intuitive reasoning, but absolutely rational if you think about it for a minute.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> But it's not fucking legal to do so, what the hell is your problem? If murder and slavery were legal (as is the case for most non-human animals) then the law should not require the consent of those animals for sexual intercourse.
> 
> *You're trying hard to look stupid here and it's quite successful, I must say.*


_That's_ my problem. You're constantly calling people stupid and ignorant when you're making incorrect claims yourself. Instead of continuing to act like a jackass, you could realize you're not so perfect yourself. You never said anything about legality in your original post, and consequently, you were wrong. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

Stunna said:


> _That's_ my problem. You're constantly calling people stupid and ignorant when you're making incorrect claims yourself. Instead of continuing to act like a jackass, you could realize you're not so perfect yourself. You never said anything about legality in your original post, and consequently, you were wrong. That's all I'm saying.



I don't need legality for my argument.

Person A thinks that it's fine to murder and enslave animal species X.

Person A thinks that it's wrong to have sex with animal species X.

That's what you call a double standard, there's absolutely not logical reason for how both of these positions can be held at the same time. It makes no sense, neither in legal nor in ethical terms.

At no point has anything I said about this been proved wrong.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 24, 2011)

Yeah, whatever you say.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I don't need legality for my argument.
> 
> Person A thinks that it's fine to murder and enslave animal species X.
> 
> ...



lol murder.

You do realize we are animals right? Animals eat other animals.


----------



## Velocity (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> That's precisely what I'm saying. As long as we're eating meat and animal products, the only reason behind a ban on bestiality is "I think it's gross therefore it should be illegal".
> 
> It's not intuitive reasoning, but absolutely rational if you think about it for a minute.



It's not rational, it's absurd. We should be trying to make life better for animals, not making it worse. The food chain is a fact of life, so all we should be doing in that respect is standardising laws for proper care of livestock - we shouldn't be trying to veganise everyone, 'cause that will _never_ work. I will _never_ give up meat - not only do I firmly believe we still need all the nutrients given by meat, I simply like the taste an awful lot more than cabbage.

If we didn't breed certain animals to be eaten, they'd greatly diminish as species _and_ I can guarantee they would live and die in much worse conditions out in the wild. I'm pretty sure if we asked a pig if it wanted to live on a farm and get fed and looked after every day of its life before having to die painlessly or live in the wild foraging for food until it gets mauled by a bear, it'd pick the farm.

These aren't even the same kind of animals, either. These people aren't raping livestock, they're raping pets. That's an entirely different matter altogether. Last I checked, it's still illegal to kill those. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can still get sent to jail for mistreating pets.


----------



## Aya~ (Jun 24, 2011)

wtf i should stop checking the caffee while im drinking my morning tea ;_;

looking at that sick fucker i doubt any fucking animal would want to rape him, what a sad psycho loser


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Winny said:


> It's not rational, it's absurd. We should be trying to make life better for animals, not making it worse. The food chain is a fact of life, so all we should be doing in that respect is standardising laws for proper care of livestock - we shouldn't be trying to veganise everyone, 'cause that will _never_ work. I will _never_ give up meat - not only do I firmly believe we still need all the nutrients given by meat, I simply like the taste an awful lot more than cabbage.
> 
> If we didn't breed certain animals to be eaten, they'd greatly diminish as species _and_ I can guarantee they would live and die in much worse conditions out in the wild. I'm pretty sure if we asked a pig if it wanted to live on a farm and get fed and looked after every day of its life before having to die painlessly or live in the wild foraging for food until it gets mauled by a bear, it'd pick the farm.
> 
> These aren't even the same kind of animals, either. These people aren't raping livestock, they're raping pets. That's an entirely different matter altogether. Last I checked, it's still illegal to kill those. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can still get sent to jail for mistreating pets.



A pig wouldn't even get the chance to be mauled by a bear. Usually piglets die of starvation.

So yeah, it's life would probably be better on a farm. It would be all fat and plump and eat alot of slop, then go straight into my belly.


----------



## Superstars (Jun 24, 2011)

Spartan1337 said:


> Busy doing what? I'm sure Satan would have more important things to do than having some man have sex with some animals.


Please...This is part of it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

The World said:


> lol murder.
> 
> You do realize we are animals right? Animals eat other animals.



And animals have sex with other animals, yet nobody would consider this a reasonable argument for anything.



Winny said:


> It's not rational, it's absurd. We should be trying to make life better for animals, not making it worse. The food chain is a fact of life, so all we should be doing in that respect is standardising laws for proper care of livestock - we shouldn't be trying to veganise everyone, 'cause that will _never_ work. I will _never_ give up meat - not only do I firmly believe we still need all the nutrients given by meat, I simply like the taste an awful lot more than cabbage.



I don't remember saying you or anyone else should give up meat, just that you can't argue against bestiality unless you do.



> If we didn't breed certain animals to be eaten, they'd greatly diminish as species _and_ I can guarantee they would live and die in much worse conditions out in the wild. I'm pretty sure if we asked a pig if it wanted to live on a farm and get fed and looked after every day of its life before having to die painlessly or live in the wild foraging for food until it gets mauled by a bear, it'd pick the farm.



Strange that it's alright to apply this reasoning to every single animal except humans. When I enslave a tribe from the rainforest who would normally not get older than 30 years and murder them at the age of 40, every single person would say it's despicable, inhuman and should be illegal. It is in fact illegal.

You assume consent where none can be given. If that's acceptable then I'll just assume if a pig had a choice between just existing in a farm among hundreds of other on very small space and getting fucked in the ass by some guy who enjoys it, the pig would pick the latter.



> These aren't even the same kind of animals, either. These people aren't raping livestock, they're raping pets. That's an entirely different matter altogether. Last I checked, it's still illegal to kill those. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can still get sent to jail for mistreating pets.



More double standards, not really a good argument. There is no logical reason whatsoever for why cats and dogs can't be slaughtered for consumption. In many countries they're considered delicious.

So in conclusion all you have is the bare assertion that animals would prefer to be enslaved and slaughtered rather than live in the wild (which is not an argument against my position at all) and citing double standards to justify other double standards.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> And animals have sex with other animals, yet nobody would consider this a reasonable argument for anything.



And Tiger's don't have sex with bears. Only humans do it, and therefore it is wrong.




Superstars said:


> Please...This is part of it.



Satan = snake

Satan makes man put his penis inside snakes mouth = 1 way trip to hell.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

The World said:


> And Tiger's don't have sex with bears. Only humans do it, and therefore it is wrong.



Lots of animals have sex with other species. So no, not only humans do it, you lost the game.

But even if that had been the case, what kind of argument is "only humans do it, therefore it's wrong"? Humans are the only species that produce Nylon, should that have any implications for anything?


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Irrelevant. Horrible analogy.

My logic is undeniable.

Also



> Shut the fuck up.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 24, 2011)

The World said:


> Irrelevant.



Your only argument was "humans are the only species to have sex with other species", which is a bare-faced lie and pointing that out is "irrelevant"?



> Horrible analogy.
> 
> My logic is undeniable.



No, your argument was horrible. Even if your initial argument were true (which it isn't), how would humans being the only species to do this have any implications on its ethical value?

Do you have anything to add?


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Yeah, I fucked your mom(a cougar) and I ate a juicy bleeding steak today.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello moron.

I can lace my posts with ad hominems to you degenerate waste of a human life.  Try having a real argument for once.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Mintaka said:


> Hello moron.
> 
> I can lace my posts with ad hominems to you degenerate waste of a human life.  Try having a real argument for once.



You mad      ?


----------



## abcd (Jun 24, 2011)

Zabuzalives said:


> 1. you make a claim
> 
> 2. I ask if you have based that on anything
> 
> ...



Ok I will tell u about the exact experiments conducted among different species in a very very short form.

1) Rats - One set of rats were kept in a caged fashion with good food and allowed to multiply, They were still given proper food regardless of the number , However after a certain increase in population they started killing each other off (there were no survival issues except space - which was still not "overcrowded") and refused to mate, overtime slowly the population returned to a lower number after which they became normal. 

2) The same experiment was tried with monkeys , However the monkeys did not kill each other , they stopped having sex and homosexuality was observed after a period of time. 

3) Chimpanzees placed in the same situation were found to lust for human females more than their chimp counterparts. They were also found mastrubating to pictures of human girls.

Also pls read about Carl Sagan, There is a difference between a scientist and a very successful one.


----------



## warp drive (Jun 24, 2011)

oh, the human race!


----------



## Eki (Jun 24, 2011)

So like... anyone want some cream pie?


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Is it banana flavored?


----------



## Kαrin (Jun 24, 2011)

All kinds of weirdos these days...


----------



## lacey (Jun 24, 2011)

/ headdesk

It looks like I'm never to regain any faith in humanity.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 24, 2011)

Winny said:


> we still need all the nutrients given by meat.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 24, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> A paraphilia does not mean exclusive interest in that certain fetish. The vast majority of zoophiles are perfectly capable of leading a normal life and have sex with other humans. This becomes more obvious when you consider other paraphilia such as podophilia (foot fetish). Nobody would claim that a foot fetish is a sexuality.
> 
> Generally, humans have a hard time even telling the difference between animal genders. We're not trained by evolution to instantly recognize the difference between a male and a female non-human, as it's just irrelevant.


I think the stark differences between sex with another species and having a desire for a part of your own species are very different, which is why labelling this as just a paraphilia sounds quite off.
With a foot fetish it's still a human and going further then that you can be homosexual,hetero or bi with a foot fetish. It's just something you enjoying doing with your prefered sexual partners.

Now with beastiality they aren't even human to begin with so I think just the significant difference between the two scenario's would make them uncomparable in this context. Another issue is that you yourself said the vast majority and not all, a majority implies that there are some that are not.
For those with zoophilia who are not like this vast majority, then what.
Even moreso just being able to have sex with your species shouldn't mean much unless I am misunderstanding you as again a heterosexual man can technically sleep with a man and one with zoophilia can technically sleep with a human. What you can do and what you want to do are two different things. However I'd assume this is not what you meant, but I cannot figure out what it is that you do mean.



Winny said:


> It's not rational, it's absurd. We should be trying to make life better for animals, not making it worse. The food chain is a fact of life, so all we should be doing in that respect is standardising laws for proper care of livestock - we shouldn't be trying to veganise everyone, 'cause that will _never_ work. I will _never_ give up meat - not only do I firmly believe we still need all the nutrients given by meat, I simply like the taste an awful lot more than cabbage.


We have no obligation to make life better for any animal. The "obligation" only comes when we are disadvantaged as a result of this animals quality of life degrading.



> If we didn't breed certain animals to be eaten, they'd greatly diminish as species _and_ I can guarantee they would live and die in much worse conditions out in the wild. I'm pretty sure if we asked a pig if it wanted to live on a farm and get fed and looked after every day of its life before having to die painlessly or live in the wild foraging for food until it gets mauled by a bear, it'd pick the farm.


If we didn't breed certain animals we would consume more than we can take in and our population would drop as a result until our numbers are in proportionate to the species we consume, basic ecology. If we didn't breed them we'd have to follow the natural order of nature, the animals dying and shit doesn't matter. We could breed fish to feed all the penguins in the antarctic too but we don't. What we do is selective and done for our own benefits.

If someone fucks a dog that is down for their own benefit.
There is no need to try and act like there is a higher purpose, we do things for our own benefit. If we truly gave a rats ass about the conditions of animal lifes we would go find some poor ass animals in the wild and not just take care for a few of them in the zoo but all of them in the wild.



> These aren't even the same kind of animals, either. *These people aren't raping livestock, they're raping pets*. That's an entirely different matter altogether. Last I checked, it's still illegal to kill those. Hell, I'm pretty sure you can still get sent to jail for mistreating pets.


So what? People have pets for their enjoyment, society has livestock to feed itself. Theres no moral issue here when pets are only had for your own enjoyment when livestock are kept for more tangible reasons.
I'd be more concerned if someone was fucking the cow im going to eat then a dog that's going to sit in their house and bark at shit. I'd be more concerned if someone was fucking a dog meant to assist the blind than a pet dog that does nothing but give the person the enjoyment of having the dog.
A pet is just shit for enjoyment might as well bitch if someone fucked my Ps2 because the actual tangible value is the same, your pet isn't feeding you or taking care of you, so it's the same shit as anything else for your enjoyment. When your pet does take care of you like eye-dogs for the blind then it's condition actually matters.

Get mad if you think im heartless.







The World said:


> And Tiger's don't have sex with bears. Only humans do it, and therefore it is wrong.


Yet Tigers fuck Lions. (liger/Tigon)
Zebras fuck Horses.
Wolves fuck dogs.
Species of plants fuck other species of plants.
Donkeys fuck horses (Mule)
chimps/apes have had interest in Humans on more than one ocassion.
These things happen all the fucking time in nature.

Screw it let me just put the nail in the coffin
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgG_kOCPPvg[/YOUTUBE]

Humans are the only ones right?
Yeah fucking right.
Do you believe humans are the only animals that have homosexuals too 

When a Dog humps a cat it's funny, when a Human does the same it's some fucking crime against nature? The fuck? Look I don't want to see someone fuck a Dog, I'm sure most of us don't, but let's not pretend it's some fucking crime against nature.

If an Orangutan fucks a Gorilla would you guys be bitching to throw the Orangutan in jail?

When a bottlenose male Dolphin rapes a male bottlenose dolphin do you guys outcast the dolphin and throw it in jail?

When a bottlenose male dolphin rapes a female dolphin do you guys say throw the rapist in jail?

Mind you orangutans and dolphins have intelligences comparable to children.

When animals do shit it's fine, but when humans do the same shit to those same animals it's outrageous. Get real people.

Human laws should be for humans, you cannot apply the same kind of standards for human & human interactions shouldn't apply to human & animal interactions otherwise we might as well demand animal & animal be interactions be controlled too.

"Your cat fucked my Dog, I want that feline in jail".


Hell it makes so little sense to be bitching about this shit.
How is a man fucking a dog dangerous to society?
Hell how would a man fucking his own dogs be dangerous to society.

Wierd? Gross? I think so, but theres no reason to bitch about it.


----------



## Yachiru (Jun 24, 2011)

.....

Sick. Fucking sick.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> *Yet Tigers fuck Lions. (liger/Tigon)
> Zebras fuck Horses.
> Wolves fuck dogs.
> Species of plants fuck other species of plants.
> ...



All those animals you just listed are apart of the same genus familiae. Derp.


----------



## Briella (Jun 24, 2011)

...  ...


----------



## Sunrider (Jun 24, 2011)

The World said:


> lol murder.
> 
> You do realize we are animals right? Animals eat other animals.


There are animals that also _fuck_ other animals. 


What Saufsoldat is trying to illuminate here is the pointless splitting of hairs. 

If animals could talk, I don't imagine a dog or cat that would consent to being eaten, bought, sold, bred, castrated, or mass-murded for our own convenience, yet we do it whether they like it or not. Why do we start worrying about an animal's rights when it comes to sex?


----------



## Bushido Brown (Jun 24, 2011)

Miss Fortune said:


> I share your shame.



Me also. Who in the fuck thinks having sex with animals is a good thing.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Sunrider said:


> There are animals that also _fuck_ other animals.
> 
> 
> What Saufsoldat is trying to illuminate here is the pointless splitting of hairs.
> ...




Are you saying I'm wrong then? 

Besides everything you just listed besides being bought is all morally wrong and looked down on upon by normal society anyway.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 24, 2011)

The World said:


> Are you saying I'm wrong then?
> 
> Besides everything you just listed besides being bought is all morally wrong and looked down on upon by normal society anyway.



So buying animals is now moral?
Wasn't moral when it was humans.
Life is life kid, ditch the morals it's bullshit.



The World said:


> All those animals you just listed are apart of the same genus familiae. Derp.



Did you just say a cat and dog are the same genus?
Still doesn't change that animals fuck each other without "consent".
Dolphins are rapists and yet they're also self aware and can understand what they're doing.
Orangutans too.
Should we throw them in jail for being immoral?

Forget that we eat animals and all that crap.
The thing that is ridiculous is that it's legal for an animal to something to another animal but if a human does it, it's fucked up. Human + animal interactions should not be confined to the exact same rules as human+human interactions it's stupid.
If no one is going to throw a dog in jail for raping a rabbit why throw a human in jail for raping a rabbit. Your just putting the dog on a higher pedestal then.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> So buying animals is now moral?
> Wasn't moral when it was humans.
> Life is life kid, ditch the morals it's bullshit.
> 
> ...



By society's standards yes. Stop twisting my words.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 24, 2011)

The World said:


> By society's standards yes. Stop twisting my words.



Society's standards at one point said selling a black man was morally fine.
Society's standards at one point wouldn't allow jews to be on the beach.
Society's standards had asians brought into countries to do cheap labour and then be shipped off back to china.

Just because it's a standard doesn't mean it's "right".
I don't have to twist anything whether it's your morals or societies doesn't change anything.

If people just sat down on their ass because of what the majorities standards were at the time, we'd probably still be living in fucking caves.


----------



## Berserk (Jun 24, 2011)

Take it easy on The World, guys.  He still hasn't gotten over his dad eloping with the family horse (which was younger than his mom, mind you).  I can understand why he would be touchy about this subject.

It's ok The World, I understand.  Let it all out.


----------



## Avix (Jun 24, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]1VnQRoDjDNY[/YOUTUBE]

But fuck this - The Russell Brand's Ponderland thing was worse what with the fat bitch blaming her husband for the breakdown of her marriage while she was riding the dog and molesting young ponies.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 24, 2011)

Its possible those who sexually molest animals are similar to embryonic serial killers who start small with animal torture.

They might start out with animals, which seems harmless to some, and graduate to being a sex offender of some type.

Better to prosecute and try to rehabilitate at this stage than wait til after they go full blown pedo rapist.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 24, 2011)

There is no reason to stop anyone from doing anything that doesn't hurt anyone(or thing) who doesn't want to be hurt.

Thinking otherwise is simply evil.


----------



## Avix (Jun 24, 2011)

kazuri said:


> There is no reason to stop anyone from doing anything that doesn't hurt anyone(or thing) who doesn't want to be hurt.
> 
> Thinking otherwise is simply evil.



How about the fucking animals? Do you think they consciously want to be felt up by some greasy mid-life monogloid?


----------



## kazuri (Jun 24, 2011)

> How about the fucking animals? Do you think they consciously want to be felt up by some greasy mid-life monogloid?



Sorry, but what part of "anything that doesn't hurt anyone(or thing)" dont you understand?
If you don't think animals can be just as horny as humans, you're an idiot. If a dog starts humping your leg, thats consent, if a chick sticks her ass in the air and a dog mounts her, thats consent.

No animal is just going to let you fuck it if it doesnt want to be fucked. Should it be illegal just because there is the occasional real animal rapist, just because there is noone there to prove the animal didnt give consent? Do you not understand that same logic applies to humans too? Should sex be illegal unless there is a third party present to verify they wanted it?


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 24, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Its possible those who sexually molest animals are similar to embryonic serial killers who start small with animal torture.
> 
> They might start out with animals, which seems harmless to some, and graduate to being a sex offender of some type.
> 
> Better to prosecute and try to rehabilitate at this stage than wait til after they go full blown pedo rapist.



And people who play violent video games are likely to be killers


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

Berserk said:


> Take it easy on The World, guys.  He still hasn't gotten over his dad eloping with the family horse (which was younger than his mom, mind you).  I can understand why he would be touchy about this subject.
> 
> It's ok The World, I understand.  Let it all out.



lol I never once chose a side. I don't care if this dog fucker goes to jail or not.

I was only mocking Sauf/Winniethepooh/whateverthefuckhisnameis stating that eating animals was akin to murder.

So deal with it you dong.


----------



## The World (Jun 24, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> And people who play violent video games are likely to be killers



Jesus fuck do you fuck goats?


----------



## Seph (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> That's precisely what I'm saying. As long as we're eating meat and animal products, the only reason behind a ban on bestiality is "I think it's gross therefore it should be illegal".
> 
> It's not intuitive reasoning, but absolutely rational if you think about it for a minute.



I completely agree. We're allowed to do anything we want to animals but if someone is horny they go to jail?


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

The World said:


> Jesus fuck do you fuck goats?



Umad

If we're going to jump to a conclusion that beastiality is going to make you a serial killer or serial rapist and needs to be outlawed because of that then might as well extend that violent media makes people into murders and rapists and needs to be outlawed as well.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 25, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Sorry, but what part of "anything that doesn't hurt anyone(or thing)" dont you understand?
> If you don't think animals can be just as horny as humans, you're an idiot. If a dog starts humping your leg, thats consent, if a chick sticks her ass in the air and a dog mounts her, thats consent.
> 
> *No animal is just going to let you fuck it if it doesnt want to be fucked.* Should it be illegal just because there is the occasional real animal rapist, just because there is noone there to prove the animal didnt give consent? Do you not understand that same logic applies to humans too? Should sex be illegal unless there is a third party present to verify they wanted it?




Those animals were asking for it by blinking 'provocatively' weren't they?


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

A human isn't raping a horse unless that shit is tied down and even then that shit isn't trustworthy. Theres a video where a horse kills a chick with it's dick, if a horse kicks a man trying to rape it the man is dead.


----------



## The Weeknd (Jun 25, 2011)

ensoriki said:


> No you ran your mouth at a joke, like the universal purpose of a joke is to be accurate. Oh wait it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I c wut u did thar


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Jun 25, 2011)

Neither i*c*st nor fucking cars or machinery or fucking animals should be prohibited. I still find them disgusting but they are not to be prohibited.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

The World said:


> All those animals you just listed are apart of the same genus familiae. Derp.




Elephants are of the  family.

Rhinos are of the  family.

In fact, they are of different orders as well. Their closest common biological classification is their Class: mammals. Derp.


----------



## DarkSpring (Jun 25, 2011)

Sick, sick...and sick once more


----------



## Shock Therapy (Jun 25, 2011)

mr hands had a brother?


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 25, 2011)

People seem to forget -- *AIDS* originated in monkeys.

Ok...  so, how did AIDs pass from monkeys to people?  

There's a decent reason animal sex should be illegal for those who fail to remember history.  


*Spoiler*: __ 



Its also possible someone ate a primate and became infected with AIDs that way.  Or, they were attacked by a infected monkey -- blood = infected.

But, there are a large number of documented cases where people had sex with an animal got some type of parasite or disease, then had sex with people and passed it on.  So, yeah.  Illegalize it, I sayy.  

Unless you want typhoid Mary animal s3x part 2 & 3 & 4, etc..


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> People seem to forget -- *AIDS* originated in monkeys.
> 
> Ok...  so, how did AIDs pass from monkeys to people?


Eating uncooked monkey meat.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 25, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> People seem to forget -- *AIDS* originated in monkeys.
> 
> Ok...  so, how did AIDs pass from monkeys to people?
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 



Look up koala bear and chlamydia.

Let's just say it gets very lonely in the outback.  To think I learned that in sign language class.


----------



## Avix (Jun 25, 2011)

kazuri said:


> Sorry, but what part of "anything that doesn't hurt anyone(or thing)" dont you understand?
> If you don't think animals can be just as horny as humans, you're an idiot. If a dog starts humping your leg, thats consent, if a chick sticks her ass in the air and a dog mounts her, thats consent.
> 
> No animal is just going to let you fuck it if it doesnt want to be fucked. Should it be illegal just because there is the occasional real animal rapist, just because there is noone there to prove the animal didnt give consent? Do you not understand that same logic applies to humans too? Should sex be illegal unless there is a third party present to verify they wanted it?



NarutoForum's Representative for _The Legalisation of Bestiality Party_ right here, reading from his brief notes as well.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

^ Point being?

To some extent animals can give consent. We slaughter animals in the millions for food, but sex which in most cases doesn't harm the animal is taboo. Xenophobia is all that is.

Too the people in this thread calling zoophile's sick, get a fucking clue. Zoophilia is as natural as any other sexual orientation. But because you think it's ''eww'' it needs to be illegal. It's a repeat of homosexuality in the past.


----------



## The World (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Elephants are of the  family.
> 
> Rhinos are of the  family.
> 
> In fact, they are of different orders as well. Their closest common biological classification is their Class: mammals. Derp.



He never brought up Elephants and Rhinos on that list. Hurpaderpderp.


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 25, 2011)

The World said:


> He never brought up Elephants and Rhinos on that list. Hurpaderpderp.



That's why I brought it up myself. Derka derka.


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jun 25, 2011)

sanx021 said:


> I don't think making these disgusting acts a felony will stop the likes of such subhumans... These sickos will not reconsider their actions right before fondling a horse, sheep or fido. Certain things you can't legislate...



Well if they were willing.....


----------



## Razgriez (Jun 25, 2011)

Toko! How could you!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> So murdering animals in the millions against their will is alrighty, but having sex with them is disgusting and should be punished with harsh prison sentences?
> 
> Double standards say hi.


You seem to have a way with comparing sex to murder.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You seem to have a way with comparing sex to murder.



Most people would agree that murder is worse than rape.


----------



## thekingisback (Jun 25, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Most people would agree that murder is worse than rape.


The world works around double standards.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

> NarutoForum's Representative for The Legalisation of Bestiality Party right here, reading from his brief notes as well.



No, more like a representative for 'freedom to do anything that doesn't hurt anyone/thing that doesn't want to be.'



> People seem to forget -- AIDS originated in monkeys.
> 
> Ok... so, how did AIDs pass from monkeys to people?
> 
> There's a decent reason animal sex should be illegal for those who fail to remember history.



Yea and tens of thousands die every year from motor vehicles. Should driving any other time than absolutely necessary be illegal? How about spending time in jail for going more than 2 miles over the speed limit? have any idea how many lives that would save?


----------



## Avix (Jun 25, 2011)

Leon said:


> It's a repeat of homosexuality in the past.



No it's not, dumbass. Homosexuals are humans, as equally as you who can exhibit their emotions on their sleeve. 

Who knows exactly how sentient animals are. They can't fucking speak. They will try and rip your limb off one second and lick you next second if you give them food.

And it doesn't 'need' to be illegal - it IS goddamn illegal. Because it's fucking sick. Creeps taking advantage of a lower form of life to get cheap thrills they are neglected of by their own species. Says a lot about the person who'd turn to it


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

> Because it's fucking sick.




....this is not what should decide if something is or isnt illegal. And frankly, the simple idea that you think whether or not something should be legal can be based on if its 'sick' is extremely frightening.

And sorry, but animals wear their emotions on huge giant clown sleeves compared to humans.


----------



## Avix (Jun 25, 2011)

Way to be selective jizz paws.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 25, 2011)

Grrblt and Sauf, seeking new lows it seems.


----------



## kazuri (Jun 25, 2011)

Understanding atoms touching and not hurting anyone who doesnt want to be isn't sick or bad: new low.



> Way to be selective jizz paws.



Way to debate, antifreedom feet?


----------



## First Tsurugi (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Grrblt and Sauf, seeking new lows it seems.



I think posting exclusively in the news section of an anime forum is as rock bottom as it gets.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 25, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Toko! How could you!


I know, I'm so sorry that I fucked your mother.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 25, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> I think posting exclusively in the news section of an anime forum is as rock bottom as it gets.


I guess its a good thing I post in other sections


----------



## Borel (Jun 25, 2011)

Obviously all of us (at least most of us) here think this is sick and disgusting, but that doesn't change the fact that this





Saufsoldat said:


> So murdering animals in the millions against their will is alrighty, but having sex with them is disgusting and should be punished with harsh prison sentences?
> 
> Double standards say hi.


is a valid point that has yet to be refuted by anyone here. Thinking that something is icky isn't a valid basis for making it illegal.


----------



## Chaotic Gangsta (Jun 25, 2011)

Ugh!  That's just beyond sick  Really, it is. I honestly don't understand half of the things that go through some of these people's minds these days


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Avix said:


> No it's not, dumbass. Homosexuals are humans, as equally as you who can exhibit their emotions on their sleeve.
> 
> Who knows exactly how sentient animals are. They can't fucking speak. They will try and rip your limb off one second and lick you next second if you give them food.
> 
> *And it doesn't 'need' to be illegal - it IS goddamn illegal. Because it's fucking sick. Creeps taking advantage of a lower form of life to get cheap thrills they are neglected of by their own species. Says a lot about the person who'd turn to it*



Way to miss the point. When I said it was a repeat of homosexuality in the past I meant it was taboo and nearly everyone would think of it as sick as people think zoophilia is now.

The bold only shows how horribly foolish and uneducated you are and you fortify my former point about the sheer xenophobia clouding people's judgment. Next time maybe try and leave out the insults with actual valid points instead of ''It's fucking sick'' like a degenerate. Cheap thrills because they are neglected by their own species? You sound exactly like the idiots in Uganda who want to imprison homosexuals for life because it's ''deviant and sick''.

Well guess what give it another lifetime or two and people will look back at people like you and think ''What fools'' Just like they people do now towards the people in the past who were so horribly close minded about everything. Ranging for racial equality, to womens rights, to homosexuality and so on and so forth.


----------



## Avix (Jun 25, 2011)

Leon said:


> Way to miss the point. When I said it was a repeat of homosexuality in the past I meant it was taboo and nearly everyone would think of it as sick as people think zoophilia is now.
> 
> The bold only shows how horribly foolish and uneducated you are and you fortify my former point about the sheer xenophobia clouding people's judgment. Next time maybe try and leave out the insults with actual valid points instead of ''It's fucking sick'' like a degenerate. Cheap thrills because they are neglected by their own species? You sound exactly like the idiots in Uganda who want to imprison homosexuals for life because it's ''deviant and sick''.
> 
> Well guess what give it another lifetime or two and people will look back at people like you and think ''What fools'' Just like they people do now towards the people in the past who were so horribly close minded about everything. Ranging for racial equality to womens rights, to homosexuality.



Uh firstly - I am not homophobic, and I voted in protest to stop that bill being passed in Uganda.

Secondly - Homosexuals are the same species. They can match you in every way. They are Human BEINGs. They are as fully sentient as you.

Animals - you have no idea how sentient they are. They cannot even talk with you - and you're trying to suggest that one day relationships with them will be viewed as normal? They are lower levels of lifeforms.

You can't start a family with an animal. (God I can't believe I'm even arguing about this) And before you chime in with "Hmm sounds familiar like with homosexuals!" - they can adopt, and as human beings are capable enough to care for their child.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 25, 2011)

Actually animals are fully senteint.

They however are not sapient like us.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

The World said:


> He never brought up Elephants and Rhinos on that list. Hurpaderpderp.



I posted a damn video of a dog humping a cat and you think it doesn't count?
Their genus is different.



> You can't start a family with an animal. (God I can't believe I'm even arguing about this) And before you chime in with "Hmm sounds familiar like with homosexuals!" - they can adopt, and as human beings are capable enough to care for their child.


Who gives a rat flying fuck whether you can start a family or not.
Just because you can doesn't mean you will.




> Animals - you have no idea how sentient they are. They cannot even talk with you - and you're trying to suggest that one day relationships with them will be viewed as normal? They are lower levels of lifeforms.


Derp so what?



> Secondly - Homosexuals are the same species. They can match you in every way. They are Human BEINGs. They are as fully sentient as you.


Capitalizing beings doesn't make a point.
If you wanted to capitalize a word the correct one would be Human.
Every animal exists and as such is a being.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Who said anything about starting a family and having a full on relationship. Zoophilia is simple sexual attraction to animals, nothing more.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

> Uh firstly - I am not homophobic, and I voted in protest to stop that bill being passed in Uganda.



That's good. But I wasn't implying you were homophobic like Uganda, I was implying you are close minded like Uganda.




> Secondly - Homosexuals are the same species. They can match you in every way. They are Human BEINGs. They are as fully sentient as you.



Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.



> Animals - you have no idea how sentient they are. They cannot even talk with you - and you're trying to suggest that one day relationships with them will be viewed as normal? They are lower levels of lifeforms.



Never said anything about relationships. I'm talking strictly sex.



> You can't start a family with an animal. (God I can't believe I'm even arguing about this) And before you chime in with "Hmm sounds familiar like with homosexuals!" - they can adopt, and as human beings are capable enough to care for their child.



Who the hell said anything about starting a family and adopting children? Zoophiles (most of them atleast) just want sex and possibly a little companionship in the form of a dog or some other pet.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 25, 2011)

Borel said:


> Obviously all of us (at least most of us) here think this is sick and disgusting, but that doesn't change the fact that thisis a valid point that has yet to be refuted by anyone here. Thinking that something is icky isn't a valid basis for making it illegal.


It's been refuted, you just don't care for the way it was refuted. Animals can't voice their opinions and people aren't just allowed to take advantage of them for sexual gratification. You can whine all you want about eating them, but eating them is necessary because eating itself is necessary. 

You can whine about hunting, but if animal populations get too high it causes them to die of starvation or disease. 

You can't find a valid reason to fuck something that can't say yes, Hell you don't ever NEED to fuck something. And by the same right you said "it being icky isn't a reason" neither is "because you like it." 

I might like ripping peoples heads off, doesn't mean I get to do it because I want to.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's been refuted, you just don't care for the way it was refuted. Animals can't voice their opinions and people aren't just allowed to take advantage of them for sexual gratification.* You can whine all you want about eating them, but eating them is necessary because eating itself is necessary. *
> 
> You can whine about hunting, but if animal populations get too high it causes them to die of starvation or disease.
> 
> ...



Yeah just a quicky post here, but we don't need to eat animals. We have tons of vegetarian foods to live off. We eat meat because we like it. For self satisfaction, just like sex with an animal would be. But sex with an animal in most cases doesn't even harm them, much less kill them. That entire point fails horribly.

''Because you like it'' is actually a valid reason. Mainly since ''because you like it'' is the reason/motivation for sex, any sex.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

Refute to what the point hasn't been destroyed in the slightest.
Attacking the comparison doesn't actually destroy the point.

Animals are capable of showing how they feel to something or do we believe that if a dog bites barks and bites you it's because it wants you fucking it?

Even still regardless of any consensus, fact remains we're not going to put a dog in jail for fucking a cat, why put a human in jail for doing the same thing. A Dog needs no verbal consensus to fuck a cat but a human does? What the fuck kind of logic is this?


----------



## Avix (Jun 25, 2011)

Leon said:


> Never said anything about relationships. I'm talking strictly sex.


You were equating it with homosexuality; Homosexuality is a way of life. Not strictly for sex - marriages, unions, adoptions, life, familiy units.




Leon said:


> Who the hell said anything about starting a family and adopting children? Zoophiles (most of them atleast) just want sex and possibly a little companionship in the form of a dog or some other pet.



Exactly and because it's a being of lower life it's wrong that the more intelligent one uses it simply "for sex" as you put it - as some kind of toy - it's exploitive and shows weak character on the part of the human.




Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's been refuted, you just don't care for the way it was refuted. Animals can't voice their opinions and people aren't just allowed to take advantage of them for sexual gratification. You can whine all you want about eating them, but eating them is necessary because eating itself is necessary.
> 
> You can whine about hunting, but if animal populations get too high it causes them to die of starvation or disease.
> 
> ...


I totally agree - especially with the bolded.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

Avix said:


> Exactly and because it's a *being of lower life* it's wrong that the more intelligent one uses it simply "for sex" as you put it - as some kind of toy - it's exploitive.



So if it was a "being of higher life" it would be okay?
Puh fucking lease what the hell do you think a Pet is to begin with? *En*-fucking-*joyment.* Nobody needs a pet but they have pets.
At the same note, nobody needs to have sex but they have sex.
Nobody needs to fuck another species, but they can and humans aren't the only ones who do.
If a dog fucks a cat the dog is being exploitive?

No individual needs to have sex. If a species wants to continue itself it's individuals need to have sex, but the individuals within never have to for their own sake as being an individual.
Oh wait fucking scratch that humans never need to have sex to procreate with new advances in science. Sex itself is pure pleasure since you can create a child now without ever sticking your penis in a woman.

Only difference here is that you can communicate verbally with the woman to know if she personally wants you if you choose to take that pleasure road.
However she can also communicate with her body, and likewise so can many mammals if not all.


----------



## Leon (Jun 25, 2011)

> You were equating it with homosexuality; Homosexuality is a way of life. Not strictly for sex - marriages, unions, adoptions, life, familiy units.



I compared the close mindedness towards it with homosexuality in the past and in some present places like Uganda. Nothing else.




> Exactly and because it's a being of lower life it's wrong that the more intelligent one uses it simply "for sex" as you put it - as some kind of toy - it's exploitive and shows weak character on the part of the human.



Wrong. Weak character has nothing to do with zoophilia since attraction to animals is imbedded within them. They don't turn to it because they can't get any. That's horribly uneducated.

We eat animals, we keep them as pets, we put them in zoo's, we use them for scientific testing. It's been established that we use them for our own gain, in a multitude of ways. But when it comes to sex people respond with ''Thats sick'' much like you did. Think about it for a moment.

If you would educate yourself on beastiality you would know that certain animals actually don't suffer negatives from having sex with humans in most cases, specifically dogs.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 25, 2011)

Quick research will also show situations of when monkeys/apes have been horny for humans.

I don't know why people are pretending animals are these "innocent" creatures.
A hell of a lot of them do the very things society has looked down on, Homosexuality (I don't put this to be negative),rape, killing your partner, abandoning offspring , leaving offspring unattended, one-night stands, gang rape (dolphins), apes have some form of prostitution system, and again dogs will hump and at times fuck anything. Horses will stick their dick in a human with no guilt. Elephant on Rhino was posted here.

Boo hoo about "exploitive" animals aren't "innocent" by the standards of society placed on to our own kind. No need to apply the same standards of human society to animals it's ridiculous otherwise dolphins that commit rape should be jailed, that elephant fucking a rhino should be jailed, maybe do community service and dead-beat fathers in the animal kingdom should pay child-support.
Let's get real.
The standards aren't the same, and they won't be the same so criminalizing Zoophilia is stupid in it's own right.

If Society deems that "It's icky I don't like it" is sufficient enough for it then fine, those are the laws of society, but if you think laws should be based off more than "it's icky I don't like it" then it doesn't fly.

Animal consent isn't an argument even if we use it as such, animals can show "their" acceptance to the situation through their own actions.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Jun 25, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can whine all you want about eating them, but eating them is necessary because eating itself is necessary.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Jun 25, 2011)

abcd said:


> Ok I will tell u about the exact experiments conducted among different species in a very very short form.



thanks.



abcd said:


> 1) Rats - One set of rats were kept in a caged fashion with good food and allowed to multiply, They were still given proper food regardless of the number , However after a certain increase in population they started killing each other off (there were no survival issues except space - which was still not "overcrowded") and refused to mate, overtime slowly the population returned to a lower number after which they became normal.



this is an old one. spawned theories about how were all going to hell in an overpopulated world. 
Showed that you have to be carefull with extrapolation from other animals. The violent reaction was not seen with humans. 



abcd said:


> 2) The same experiment was tried with monkeys , However the monkeys did not kill each other , they stopped having sex and homosexuality was observed after a period of time.
> 
> 3) Chimpanzees placed in the same situation were found to lust for human females more than their chimp counterparts. They were also found mastrubating to pictures of human girls.



like recurrent and growing levels of homosexuality?? 

chimp one makes me wonder if they were hand reared by humans. 

[/quote]
Also pls read about Carl Sagan, There is a difference between a scientist and a very successful one. [/QUOTE]

that its a natural mechanism to reduce overpopulation is a huge claim. 
The experiments give ground to the hypothesis, they do not prove the theory. 

Were the spartans overpopulated? or the many cases of reported homosexual acts in animals where overpopulation plays no role?


though it does make sense in that overpopulation leads to stress which can lead to (more instances of) abnormal behaviour and reduced/delayed reproduction. 



anyway. did a quick google scholar search but found nilch. When i got time i might go in deeper through web of science and pubmed etc. for a bit of literature search about the subject.


its an interesting hypothesis.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 25, 2011)

We do a lot of shit worse to animals than fucking them

Stop legalized sanctioned animal cruelty and then we'll discuss bestiality.


----------



## Borel (Jun 26, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's been refuted, you just don't care for the way it was refuted.


Indeed, since the refutations haven't made sense.





> Animals can't voice their opinions and people aren't just allowed to take advantage of them for sexual gratification. You can whine all you want about eating them, but eating them is necessary because eating itself is necessary.


Animals can't voice their opinions about being mass murdered or being held captive for their entire lives either. And eating animals is not necessary.





> You can whine about hunting, but if animal populations get too high it causes them to die of starvation or disease.


The same can be said for humans. Yet animals are the ones we kill without their consent. This implies that animals obviously have almost no rights whereas humans do.





> You can't find a valid reason to fuck something that can't say yes, Hell you don't ever NEED to fuck something. And by the same right you said "it being icky isn't a reason" neither is "because you like it."


I always thought a reason was needed to make something illegal, not to make it legal. Otherwise we might as well make jumping in puddles or quoting Yoda or whatever illegal: there's no reason for those to be legal. One does those things because one likes them.


> I might like ripping peoples heads off, doesn't mean I get to do it because I want to.


The difference is that our society obviously respects human beings as it's illegal to murder them, kidnap them, rip their heads off etc.

Murdering animals and holding them captive against their consent is completely acceptable to society, so making raping them illegal just doesn't add up.


----------



## The World (Jun 26, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> That's why I brought it up myself. Derka derka.



So why are you quoting me. DURKADURKAKJANFAJFNAHERPPAookfnafHERPADURPDERP THREEMENINABOAT! 1 FISH 2 FISH GREEN FISH BLUE FISH NICK NACK PADY WACK GIVE A DOG A BONE!


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 26, 2011)

The World said:


> So why are you quoting me. DURKADURKAKJANFAJFNAHERPPAookfnafHERPADURPDERP THREEMENINABOAT! 1 FISH 2 FISH GREEN FISH BLUE FISH NICK NACK PADY WACK GIVE A DOG A BONE!



Because you expressed the opinion that only humans have sex with out-of-family species, and that it therefore is wrong to do so. I was correcting you on that.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 26, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's been refuted, you just don't care for the way it was refuted. Animals can't voice their opinions and people aren't just allowed to take advantage of them for sexual gratification. You can whine all you want about eating them, but eating them is necessary because eating itself is necessary.
> 
> You can whine about hunting, but if animal populations get too high it causes them to die of starvation or disease.
> 
> ...



Eating animals is not necessary, all the nutrients of meat have adequate substitutes. Hell, you could even go to only eating insects, as they have much lesser brain function than mammals. 95% of all westerners eat far more meat than is healthy for them.

Also I loled at your attempt to assume consent where none can be given. "Hello, Mr. Deer, it seems that there's an awful lot of you guys running around the woods lately, so you might possibly die of disease or starvation at some point. Let me help you by shooting you in the head right now. If you don't want to consent to this, just say something..."


----------



## reaperunique (Jun 26, 2011)

Unlike a human if an animal (especially a dog) doesn't like something it'll let ya know through action, either by biting you to death, by howling, ...

It's sick but animals aren't brain dead either.

Anyhow, nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jun 26, 2011)

Woof Woof 

Lmao


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 26, 2011)

reaperunique said:


> Unlike a human if an animal (especially a dog) doesn't like something it'll let ya know through action, either by biting you to death, by howling, ...
> 
> It's sick but animals aren't brain dead either.
> 
> Anyhow, nothing new under the sun.



Humans will let you know through action too.
Everbody knows if a woman is kicking you in your and screaming and scratching she doesn't want it, or she's really kinky.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Jun 26, 2011)

Judging by this thread it seems the conservatives were right.

After gay marriage it's only a matter of time before pedophilia and bestiality are allowed as well.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 26, 2011)

pedophilia was shaky to begin with.
Anyone who was a minor could count for pedophilia but the ages around the world are not all 18.
Pedophilia was based on the governments own age limit.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2011)

If you can put your dick in a horse, you can put your dick in an exhaust pipe.


----------



## FLUFFY G (Jun 26, 2011)

Eww, getting all up in that dog's booty hole.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 26, 2011)

> "If this had been a child, there would have been an uproar about it," Joyce Fields told the Mansfield News Journal.


Yeah, because that's a child. We cook and eat animals, but if that was a child, there would be an uproar about it. And rightfully so, because it's a human child.



> "There isn't much difference because this pet didn't accept or consent to what he wadoing. That makes it wrong."


 Go back to PETA. There's quite a big morality difference between humans and other animals. Sure it's wrong, but there's a massive difference between humans and animals in this regard!


----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Because you expressed the opinion that only humans have sex with out-of-family species, and that it therefore is wrong to do so. I was correcting you on that.



It is wrong, because we as humans view ourselves(I hope) as above animals. That animals are a lower species.

So it is therefore perverted to have sex with a lesser being that has no consent and has no sapient conscious decision towards it.

People actually arguing towards bestiality.  Fucking NF.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> It is wrong, because we as humans view ourselves(I hope) as above animals. That animals are a lower species.
> 
> So it is therefore perverted to have sex with a lesser being that has no consent and has no sapient conscious decision towards it.
> 
> People actually arguing towards bestiality.  Fucking NF.



But we're not above common predators slaughtering millions of animals every day even though we don't have to


----------



## abcd (Jun 27, 2011)




----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> But we're not above common predators slaughtering millions of animals every day even though we don't have to



I don't know who's advocating that or defending the people who mindless slaughter animals cause I sure don't.

If it's slaughtering animals for food = I don't give a darn, they are food, feed me.

If it's slaughtering animals for sport, money, research = I think that should be banned.

I'm pretty sure most of that stuff is illegal anyway.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> I don't know who's advocating that or defending the people who mindless slaughter animals cause I sure don't.
> 
> If it's slaughtering animals for food = I don't give a darn, they are food, feed me.
> 
> ...



Humans can be eaten, too. Do you give a darn about them being slaughtered for food?


----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

When are humans slaughtered for food? Wut?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> When are humans slaughtered for food? Wut?



They're not, because it's illegal.


----------



## Morganna (Jun 27, 2011)

I guess we can't help the sexualization of all relationship.Today this ...tomorrow..."I am dating and f*cking my PS3,we love each other very much"


----------



## G (Jun 27, 2011)

With a horse????!!!

i just puked


----------



## Morganna (Jun 27, 2011)

V said:


> With a horse????!!!
> 
> i just puked


You don't have much experience with pr0n do you?XD

kidding


----------



## Kiss (Jun 27, 2011)

I don't even


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> It is wrong, because we as humans view ourselves(I hope) as above animals. That animals are a lower species.
> 
> So it is therefore perverted to have sex with a lesser being that has no consent and has no sapient conscious decision towards it.
> 
> People actually arguing towards bestiality.  Fucking NF.



I view myself as above you. Therefore it would be immoral, perverted and akin to bestiality for anyone to have sex with you since you have no consent.


----------



## Elias (Jun 27, 2011)

that's nasty.


----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> I view myself as above you. Therefore it would be immoral, perverted and akin to bestiality for anyone to have sex with you since you have no consent.



I wouldn't consent to you because most likely you are a degenerate. And I'm not gay.


----------



## abcd (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> I don't know who's advocating that or defending the people who mindless slaughter animals cause I sure don't.
> 
> If it's slaughtering animals for food = I don't give a darn, they are food, feed me.
> 
> ...



What about having pets?


----------



## Gooba (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> I don't know who's advocating that or defending the people who mindless slaughter animals cause I sure don't.
> 
> If it's slaughtering animals for food = I don't give a darn, they are food, feed me.
> 
> ...


Slaughtering animals for medical research saves far, far more lives than giving dozen people a steak dinner instead of healthier food at the cost of vast amounts of grain.


----------



## The World (Jun 27, 2011)

Gooba said:


> Slaughtering animals for medical research saves far, far more lives than giving dozen people a steak dinner instead of healthier food at the cost of vast amounts of grain.



But I want my steak dinner.


----------



## abcd (Jun 27, 2011)

The World said:


> But I want my steak dinner.



Man mentioned in OP : But I love them


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Jun 27, 2011)

I still don't get how a man can fuck a horse.


----------



## Morganna (Jun 27, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> I still don't get how a man can fuck a horse.



You could use a picture...XD

Aside from joking I've read something about weird relationships and what I remember is that a woman had married a wall,she also said that they had a perfectly normal sexual life as well...
Man...and around that same article there was also a man who had a relationship with a horse(yes sex too).


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 27, 2011)

Narutofann12 said:


> I still don't get how a man can fuck a horse.



Do you understand how a man can fuck a woman? Good. Now swap the woman for a horse.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 27, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> Do you understand how a man can fuck a woman? Good. Now swap the woman for a horse.




I've never seen Grrblt put so much time and effort into defending something as he has into ensuring mans 'freedom' to fuck aminals.  

Why is that?  


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Grrblt (Jun 27, 2011)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I've never seen Grrblt put so much time and effort into defending something as he has into ensuring mans 'freedom' to fuck aminals.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...



It's quite amazing that you can have 7000 posts at this forum and still never have seen me defend something to this degree.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 27, 2011)

Grrblt said:


> It's quite amazing that you can have 7000 posts at this forum and still never have seen me defend something to this degree.



The only other thing I remember seeing you defend with enthusiasm were Degelle's allegations of you being a closet pedo.  

Hmm.  Funny how that werks.


----------

