A High Way Man
all ova da world
But don't bestialists equate a sexual relationship with an animal to one with a human? It's counter-intuitive not to apply the concept of consent.
You're assuming that they have the mens rea for rape? Well I don't think so, even when they do have sex with an animal I imagine they probably think of it as having the same cognitive abilities as they do.A High Way Man said:But don't bestialists equate a sexual relationship with an animal to one with a human? It's counter-intuitive not to apply the concept of consent.
The reason consent is necessary in human relations, is because sex without consent is always harmfull to a person.A High Way Man said:How would we know, for sure, if bestiality is consensual?
I'll say I'm against rape of all kinds, ha
Enteebee said:Animals aren't able to consent to heaps of shit we do to them, should that also stop?
The fact that they're incapable of forming relations shouldn't matter either because let's be honest, heaps of people go into sex not looking for any sort of relationship... for instance people going to a prostitute, should prostitution be banned?[/quote]
I thought prostitution was already illegal..
Nope.Troy2287 said:I thought prostitution was already illegal..
It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.Iron said:Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of 10 women to each man. Wouldnt that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogomous sexual relations - as far as men were concerned?
And animals will have to be bred andKFunk said:It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
Not to mention that monogamy is not necessarily the default setting for human beings. For both males and females, outward monogamy is the default setting only because we necessarily have to invest a huge amount of time into our offspring; thus female ovulation is hidden. However, that doesn't stop a solid ~10% of the population of either gender from being promiscuous; there are large genetic advantages to it, and the cost/benefit ratio is quite low if you don't get caught.KFunk said:It is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
I already explained that a condom does not neccessarily negate the general unhygienicness of the act of engaging in intercourse with an animal of a different species. Moreso, it's not as if a dog in the sexual stupor which comes from weeks of deprivation is particularly willing to allow it's owner to place a condom over it's penis, and then patiently ensure it's on for the whole duration.Kwayera said:SIV = Simian (primate) Immunodeficiency Virus. It's where we got it from; SIV has "transferred" to humans quite a few times separately, starting around the 1800s. So no, not polio vaccine.
And, ah, condom?
So you support bestiality, but not two dogs having sex? And you're calling me insane. Please, do society a favour and end yourself.And finally, I'm sorry, letting your pet go to a dog park and "do what comes naturally" is extraordinarily irresponsible. My desexed female was essentially "raped" (i.e. forced by a larger, entire male dog) until we pulled the dog off. So to make that argument shows your extreme ignorance and lack of foresight.
The conditioning or preparation as you call it involves sustained sexual deprivation. An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species. Concede that fact.I do not believe it necessarily hurts the animal to perform sexual acts on it, except in the case of desexed females that generally lack the capacity to become aroused.
Yeah, I'm sure we're all speciest. However, the question of whether we ought to be is still pertinent. We have rejected plenty of social norms in the past - why not another? Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.Enteebee said:I'm a speciest, I think anyone who claims not to be is a liar. The question is really how much right we afford to animals in recognising their merits as fellow creatures.
That's an excellent idea Doctor.Originally Posted by Iron said:Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of 10 women to each man. Wouldnt that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogomous sexual relations - as far as men were concerned?
Needs to be investigated. I'd be very disappointed in animals if the opposite was true.sam04u said:An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species.
AgreedKFunk said:Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.
News to me old boy!KFunk said:Of course, as a moral nihilist I'm not going to engage in a normative debate.
Kill the iconophiles.
You shouldn't use pragmatism (which is value-relative) as a cover word for anthropocentrism. If you're comfortable with a speciest utilitarian calculus, fine, but it makes me uneasy.Miles Edgeworth said:The really irritating thing is I understand the flaws in my own argument and I understand the 'specious' (excuse my mild pun) reasoning behind it; however it isn't cruelty for cruelty's sake. Animal testing has had an impact in over 80% of medical developments over the past 100 years.
It's more of a utilitarian argument made on the level of cognisance and sentience in other beings (Something we however, cannot validly quantify). I therefore base the argument on the somewhat dehumanising one of natural selection... blah blah blah. I don't make the argument from species ignorance but from pragmatism.
Why value life and not non-life?KFunk said:You shouldn't use pragmatism (which is value-relative) as a cover word for anthropocentrism. If you're comfortable with a speciest utilitarian calculus, fine, but it makes me uneasy.
I quoted it in a very "we can fall in love" wayRiet said:Second one I disagree, you don't feel a bond with any of your pets?
Why would it necessarily be unhygenic? One assumes that a person having sex with an animal would ensure that both are relatively clean to start off with. Heck, even horse breeders are scrupulous (to the point of overkill) about the hygiene of their animals.sam04u said:I already explained that a condom does not neccessarily negate the general unhygienicness of the act of engaging in intercourse with an animal of a different species. Moreso, it's not as if a dog in the sexual stupor which comes from weeks of deprivation is particularly willing to allow it's owner to place a condom over it's penis, and then patiently ensure it's on for the whole duration.
At the point at which a human would suffice for an animal is a point of extreme sexual tension and deprivation to the point of cruelty. And for what reason? A few seconds of sexual gratification for the owner? That's highly immoral.
Actually, yes, we do. Read some stuff by Stephen J O'Brian and his ilk.Also, the polio vaccine theory has generally been debunked by the scientific community, I just threw that in there for diversity of arguments, or theories. We don't know for sure either way how that epidemic was transfered via one species to another, and is now so widely prevalent in sub-saharan Africa.
Just because I'm saying there's nothing inherently cruel about it, doesn't mean I condone it. And what I am saying is that unplanned matings between dogs, without a damned good reason to produce pups, is irresponsible, and any owner that IS responsible would desex their animals to prevent this from occuring.So you support bestiality, but not two dogs having sex? And you're calling me insane. Please, do society a favour and end yourself.
First of all, how does it involve "sustained sexual deprivation"? Are you saying that between human sex, "sustained sexual deprivation" during foreplay is akin to torture?The conditioning or preparation as you call it involves sustained sexual deprivation. An animal does not enjoy sexual acts with it's owner over a member of it's own species. Concede that fact.
UIC why are you one of the only sane women which posts in this section of the forums? ^^;ur_inner_child said:I quoted it in a very "we can fall in love" way