# A split off 'Neer's Beastiality Thread



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

In response to this thread... http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=49161 I want to make a statement. I am putting it here to avoid any possible derailment of the original thread.

My statemnet/question is...

If everyone turned furry overnight, does beastiality remain illegal or does it become acceptible?

I am against beastiality so this is just a simple question.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> In response to this thread... http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=49161 I want to make a statement. I am putting it here to avoid any possible derailment of the original thread.
> 
> My statemnet/question is...
> 
> ...



illegal, that simple, the majority hate it, so it would still be illegal.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> illegal, that simple, the majority hate it, so it would still be illegal.



Yeah, but the question does have validity you know


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> Yeah, but the question does have validity you know



yeah, there are furry beasties so...


----------



## Iakesen (Aug 23, 2009)

If you're talking about anthros fucking non-anthros, it would probably still be illegal.


----------



## Aden (Aug 23, 2009)

Having sex with an anthro would be, I assume, having sex with something that can express informed consent. Not so with animals. </thread>


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Iakesen said:


> If you're talking about anthros fucking non-anthros, it would probably still be illegal.



that i dont know, it may be legal there, thats talking fursona change, but all furry fandom, still illegal.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

would probably be a "sapience vs non sapience" issue


----------



## Attaman (Aug 23, 2009)

If everyone became Furry overnight I do believe there'd be much bigger concerns than "Can I fuck my dog?"

I'm however going to say "Bestiality will remain illegal where it's currently illegal, and remain legal where it's currently legal".


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> In response to this thread... http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=49161 I want to make a statement. I am putting it here to avoid any possible derailment of the original thread.
> 
> My statemnet/question is...
> 
> ...



I would think the issue would still remain the same. Unless dogs spectacularly become more intelligent and gain the ability to speak plain english, or whatever the hell anthro's speak, and be able to fully convey their ideas. Wrong is still wrong.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 23, 2009)

Aden said:


> Having sex with an anthro would be, I assume, having sex with something that can express informed consent. Not so with animals. </thread>



QFT


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Aug 23, 2009)

Why do people care so much? If everybody turns into a anthro/feral fursona, then they'll still continue to have sex but in a more liberal inter-species kind of way.

BUT, animals would just be animals. So it'll still be illegal.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 23, 2009)

Reaction to this thread.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Aug 23, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> I would think the issue would still remain the same. Unless dogs spectacularly become more intelligent and gain the ability to speak plain english, or whatever the hell anthro's speak, and be able to fully convey their ideas. Wrong is still wrong.



I said that and some guy got butthurt over that statment.


----------



## Glacierwulf (Aug 23, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I said that and some guy got butthurt over that statment.



I'd wonder why? Lol.


----------



## Corto (Aug 23, 2009)

Oh hey another bestiality thread. Woop dee doo.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 23, 2009)

Corto said:


> Oh hey another bestiality thread. Woop dee doo.



check the site discussion corto. lots of fun there XD


----------



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2009)

Aden has it right; These are exactly my feelings about the subject, both with or without furries. If consent can be clearly, concisely given in clear judgement by both parties, then all is well; But if the animals can't consent or don't have the faculties to properly do so (just as children "can" consent, but don't have the faculties to understand what it is they're consenting to), then it's no different.

Now if animals suddenly became sentient and no different in terms of intelligence from a human or one of the anthros running around, then sure, why not? _Then_ we could talk inter-species sexual (and other) relations. But if no consent exists, no sex. Simple as that.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

I just read something funny...

What do prisoners call a bestiality inmate?

Chicken Fingers!


...ok continue thread


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

hello i was tould thered be a spliff of neers thread and i dont understand coz i am reet bollocksed

why the anger how you feel


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> hello i was tould thered be a spliff of neers thread and i dont understand coz i am reet bollocksed
> 
> why the anger how you feel



lolwut


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> lolwut



hallo
mister dog
i see you have red eyes and like needles
are you trying to tell us something
i am not here to oppress anyone for their beliefs and make them work in cotton fields


----------



## Kangamutt (Aug 23, 2009)

Corto said:


> Oh hey another bestiality thread. Woop dee doo.



Quite.

It's ad nauseam to the point of nausea.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Now if animals suddenly became sentient and no different in terms of intelligence from a human or one of the anthros running around, then sure, why not? _Then_ we could talk inter-species sexual (and other) relations. But if no consent exists, no sex. Simple as that.



But you know, that would open a whole new can of worms and issues


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> hallo
> mister dog
> i see you have red eyes and like needles
> are you trying to tell us something
> i am not here to oppress anyone for their beliefs and make them work in cotton fields



Nope, I'm white


----------



## Corto (Aug 23, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> But you know, that would open a whole new can of worms and issues


So is your goal here finding reasons why bestiality is bad besides the whole consent thing?


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Corto said:


> So is your goal here finding reasons why bestiality is bad besides the whole consent thing?



Nope, I was just making a whatif senario


----------



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> But you know, that would open a whole new can of worms and issues



Obviously. But there'd be a similar can of worms opened up if the example of anthros were to become reality. In these cases, it'd be the same can of worms that interracial relations opened up some fifty-odd years ago.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Obviously. But there'd be a similar can of worms opened up if the example of anthros were to become reality. In these cases, it'd be the same can of worms that interracial relations opened up some fifty-odd years ago.



This is why I started this thread, as a whatif senario


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

david bowie is very disappointed in this thread


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> david bowie is very disappointed in this thread



Him too, huh?


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 24, 2009)

oh?


----------



## Carenath (Aug 24, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> If everyone turned furry overnight, does beastiality remain illegal or does it become acceptible?
> 
> I am against beastiality so this is just a simple question.


I'd aliken it to humans having sex with lower primates that are closely related to us, like chimps and monkeys. It would still be wrong and socially unacceptable.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

Carenath said:


> I'd aliken it to humans having sex with lower primates that are closely related to us, like chimps and monkeys. It would still be wrong and socially unacceptable.



If, however, those animals gained sentience and intelligence of the same order as said anthros and normal humans, it muddies the waters a little more. There really isn't a parallel to draw from our current situation like there is between anthros and feral, unintelligent animals.


----------



## Ainoko (Aug 24, 2009)

Runefox said:


> If, however, those animals gained sentience and intelligence of the same order as said anthros and normal humans, it muddies the waters a little more. There really isn't a parallel to draw from our current situation like there is between anthros and feral, unintelligent animals.



That is why this is "what if..."


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

Ainoko said:


> That is why this is "what if..."



I know, I've already voiced my feelings on that subject.


----------



## Aden (Aug 24, 2009)

Exactly what part of "</thread>" don't you people understand? :U


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 24, 2009)

An anthro f*cking a non-anthro is like a human f*cking a chimp.   Illegal.

There's your answer.  Now can we PLEASE go for a week without discussing bestiality?? 

*lights incense and sends up a request to the almighty mod to close thread*


----------



## Ricky (Aug 24, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> An anthro f*cking a non-anthro is like a human f*cking a chimp.   Illegal.
> 
> There's your answer.  Now can we PLEASE go for a week without discussing bestiality??
> 
> *lights incense and sends up a request to the almighty mod to close thread*



Are you saying a chimp can consent?

What about those monkeys that speak sign language?  If they can consent then it's ok.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Are you saying a chimp can consent?
> 
> What about those monkeys that speak sign language?  If they can consent then it's ok.



I firmly believe that when people hate something for one reason or another they will look for and or make up reasons why it should be illegal. I've took the time to read over a considerable amount of posts and all I can say is that the majority of the anti-bestiality arguments reminds me of Jack Thompson and video games.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> I firmly believe that when people hate something for one reason or another they will look for and or make up reasons why it should be illegal. I've took the time to read over a considerable amount of posts and all I can say is that the majority of the anti-bestiality arguments reminds me of Jack Thompson and video games.



I personally think that my (and several others') explanation involving lack of consent would be the most logical and pressing reason. I'm not sure why other reasons need to be "made up", unless you're calling into question whether or not consent is legally and morally required for sexual activity.


----------



## Corto (Aug 24, 2009)

Holy shit, with the number of dogfucking threads appearing we may need a bestiality subforum. Either that or I get permission to proceed with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Oh, I'm not questioning consent when it comes to humans. I'm questioning the thought process in how anyone can logically apply "consent" to an animal, or even argue it. Cos the rape laws only apply to our species, would you argue that a man could sexually assault a tree or any plant and be charged for it?

Might as well charge everyone for rape when using sex toys, they can't consent to sex.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 24, 2009)

Corto said:


> Holy shit, with the number of dogfucking threads appearing we may need a bestiality subforum. Either that or I get permission to proceed with extreme prejudice.



You have my permission Corto >.>


----------



## Corto (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Oh, I'm not questioning consent when it comes to humans. I'm questioning the thought process in how anyone can logically apply "consent" to an animal, or even argue it. Cos the rape laws only apply to our species, would you argue that a man could sexually assault a tree or any plant and be charged for it?
> 
> Might as well charge everyone for rape when using sex toys, they can't consent to sex.



If you're using the law as guidelines, then that's a stupid argument. Zoophilia either has specific laws against it or are part of the definition of "animal abuse". Saying that bestiliality ain't forbidden by rape laws is like saying that killing a child ain't forbidden by robbery laws.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Corto said:


> If you're using the law as guidelines, then that's a stupid argument. Zoophilia either has specific laws against it or are part of the definition of "animal abuse". Saying that bestiliality ain't forbidden by rape laws is like saying that killing a child ain't forbidden by robbery laws.



It's legal in my state to have sex with any domestic animal over 50 lbs.

Again, rape only applies to our species... "animal abuse" in an area in where bestiality is not illegal is technically considered a loop-hole, or entrapment.

And I must ask, what does killing _anyone_ have to do with robbery laws? Murder has it's own set of laws, and I believe it was called homicide. You rob someone, of any age, kill them, it jumps from robbery/theft to manslaughter or homicide. And you can't rob a deer my friend.


----------



## Nightingalle (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Oh, I'm not questioning consent when it comes to humans. I'm questioning the thought process in how anyone can logically apply "consent" to an animal, or even argue it. Cos the rape laws only apply to our species, would you argue that a man could sexually assault a tree or any plant and be charged for it?
> 
> Might as well charge everyone for rape when using sex toys, they can't consent to sex.



Brb suing my vibrator for sexual harassment.


----------



## Corto (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> And I must ask, what does killing _anyone_ have to do with robbery laws? Murder has it's own set of laws, and I believe it was called homicide. You rob someone, of any age, kill them, it jumps from robbery/theft to manslaughter or homicide. And you can't rob a deer my friend.



No shit Sherlock, that's why I was using it as an example. Rape is it's own law, it only applies to humans. Zoophilia is either treated by itself or under the animal abuse laws, hence saying that simply because the legal definition of "rape" doesn't include dog fucking it doesn't make the comparision a moot point.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Then why would you knowingly attempt to make a point that is virtually worthless?


----------



## Corto (Aug 24, 2009)

I'm not saying the comparition is bad. I believe that zoophilia is essentialy rape. What I believe is that the fact that the law for "rape" doesn't contemplate dog fucking doesn't make the comparition worthless because zoophilia is it's own isolated crime (either by itself or as animal abuse).


----------



## Tycho (Aug 24, 2009)

Corto said:


> Holy shit, with the number of dogfucking threads appearing we may need a bestiality subforum.



Do not want.

Ever.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

I'm not really sure how I can even respond to that reasoning, since it implies that no animal has any emotion or has any sort of negative reaction to sexual abuse. Perhaps I'm anthropomorphising too much with regard to consent (as far as zoophiles go, however, this is a valid issue, since they see them as equals), but the fact still remains universally that it is a form of abuse against an animal. It's getting absurdly late, so I'm not sure if I can really formulate a proper response right now or if I even want to touch it any more than I already have, considering the rash of posts and the number of times I've repeated myself (much like the whole Obamacare subject). I guess the biggest thing is, it very much depends on the way you look at animals and whether or not you see a "tool"/"property" or "companion"/"living being" when you cast your gaze at them.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

It really does depend on how you see animals.

Lemme try to hit on a few points in which you used in your post

Tool: Tools are instruments that makes our lives easier, whether it be transportation, firearms for hunting or whatever. But it's not illegal nor immoral to use a "tool" for sexual pleasure, such as rubbing themselves with a gun...

Property: Property implies ownership, you own your TV, your car, and if you see animals as property which is generally how our society views them considering you've gotta pay taxes and get tags for your pets, you are allowed to pleasure yourself with your own property.

Companion: There are different variations of companionship, including sexual...

Living Being: Pretty self explanatory, but if you want to look at animals as equals to us then they should be given the right to vote and killing an animal outside of self defense should be a life sentence...

The only time I believe that bestiality should be prosecuted as animal abuse is if actual physical harm happens to them, and I do not mean an accident. Only then would I agree that bestiality should be prosecuted, and being that I believe no harm comes from having sex an animal (under general circumstances) I do not believe it should be prosecuted.


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> It really does depend on how you see animals.



How you see them does not magically make them smart enough to consent.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> How you see them does not magically make them smart enough to consent.



That only applies to humans... Sorry... You can't apply your morality here.

and yes, they are smart enough to contest... It's a common misconception that if you try to do anything to an animal, they'll just sit there and take it...


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 24, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> How you see them does not magically make them smart enough to consent.


  If my cat actually says "bone me" I will be appalled and fearful of the implications. (I would hand it a bone)


----------



## Liam (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> And you can't rob a deer my friend.


Most deer legally, don't have any possessions.
No-one has yet to make a remotely convincing reason to justify such a thing as bestiality.


----------



## Liam (Aug 24, 2009)

Corto said:


> Holy shit, with the number of dogfucking threads appearing we may need a bestiality subforum.


.


			
				ModeratorOfSaidSubforum said:
			
		

> Hmm... Another thread.  LOCKED.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> and yes, they are smart enough to contest... It's a common misconception that if you try to do anything to an animal, they'll just sit there and take it...



"Hey, if this dog won't bite me, it means it's okay to fuck it"
Fuck what animals think and does it hurt them. Having sex with pets is bad because they're meant to be around humans, and they have no restraints once they think something is okay to do. If you want to screw something, go to a farm where no one will see or care.

Woo bestiality threads, they're almost as popular as religion ones.


----------



## Wreth (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> That only applies to humans... Sorry... You can't apply your morality here.
> 
> and yes, they are smart enough to contest... It's a common misconception that if you try to do anything to an animal, they'll just sit there and take it...




If a child consents is it ok?


----------



## Thatch (Aug 24, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> If a child consents is it ok?



If it doesn't say no or cower away? That's agreeing, isn't it? :V


----------



## Wreth (Aug 24, 2009)

szopaw said:


> If it doesn't say no or cower away? That's agreeing, isn't it? :V




Absolutely, I'm glad we see eye to eye :Y


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> > Tool: Tools are instruments that makes our lives easier, whether it be transportation, firearms for hunting or whatever. But it's not illegal nor immoral to use a "tool" for sexual pleasure, such as rubbing themselves with a gun...
> 
> 
> So because some animals have utility, it's perfectly fine to rub yourself against and use them as you see fit?
> ...


----------



## Corto (Aug 24, 2009)

EDIT: Fox, the whole "animals are property" thing gets even worse when you realize that Feral said that animals are smart enough to consent. He gives them more intelligence than they have while at the same time removing their rights. Wheeepeee!



gulielmus said:


> .


Back at the end of the october revolution, the bolsheviks secretly started an anti-communism group in hopes that their enemies would join and they would be able to tell them apart and deal with them. The plan was so successful they managed to find the most dangerous of the counter-revolutionaries and prevent the forming of bigger enemy groups.

I was thinking of something like that but with less communism and more dog fucking.


----------



## Aden (Aug 24, 2009)

Corto said:


> Either that or I get permission to proceed with extreme prejudice.



Please do.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 24, 2009)

Corto said:


> EDIT: Fox, the whole "animals are property" thing gets even worse when you realize that Feral said that animals are smart enough to consent. He gives them more intelligence than they have while at the same time removing their rights. Wheeepeee!



I always wanted a sex slave.



Corto said:


> I was thinking of something like that but with less communism and more dog fucking.



Watch out, you might change your mind :V


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Shay Feral said:
> 
> 
> > So because some animals have utility, it's perfectly fine to rub yourself against and use them as you see fit?
> ...


----------



## Corto (Aug 24, 2009)

Yeah because as we all know animals are smart enough to sign treaties and constitutions. They're just too lazy to demand their own rights.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> If you want to know how to deal with it, a good place to start would be to be a bit more open minded to the fact that your morals are not always right to everyone else.


It seems to me that cruelty to animals is something that most people can consider to be wrong. Using them as an outlet for physical aggression and sexual frustration is incredibly damaging, and it's all because they're considered to be lower forms of life. I consider this an extremely arrogant standpoint, considering we try to coexist and even care for a number of different animals even within city life.

My morals may be different, but I don't consider it closed-minded to say that a living being of any intelligence should have as much a right to security of body and mind as we do. Just because we don't grant them that right doesn't mean we absolutely have to go out of our way to exploit it.



> All I've seen so far is a bunch of like minded individuals beating a topic senseless with no real definitive proof of actual harm.


So it actually has to draw blood in order for there to be harm done?



> Apparantly animals only have the rights we as humans _want_ to give them


Just like your wife is a possession in Afghanistan and rape is now very much legal if she refuses to give you sex. These women don't deserve to be treated any differently - They're possessions and they don't have any rights.

Just because something doesn't have rights doesn't mean that we should automatically be complete bastards. Like for example back when Martin Luther King Jr was making the rounds, people considered blacks to be inferior and they held lesser rights; But does that mean necessarily that it's absolutely required to have treated them like dirt? There were plenty of examples of it, but there were also examples of people who didn't follow the trend. It seems a little shallow to simply say that because something doesn't have rights, it's completely acceptable to go to town and do whatever you want. I don't mean to equate the African American struggle to animal rights, but it just seems that there are so many parallels between how they were treated - I'm sure many would agree that they were treated like "animals".

We are considered to be the one and only truly intelligent forms of life on this Earth (and as far as anyone knows for sure, the universe), and our intelligence gives us control over how we treat those around us. How we treat our co-inhabitants on this planet may very well shape how we treat ourselves, and further along, how we are treated by future races in the far-flung future, assuming other intelligent life is out there. It just really doesn't make any sense that the reason why it's OK to have sex with animals is because it's not forbidden in some places. We are their guardians from ourselves. If we abuse that position, what does that make us? They can't consent. They can't refuse. They can't understand the desires of animals like us, completely different from their own; We can barely even understand their intentions after centuries and millennia of researching animal behaviour. Are you saying that because they lack this ability, we have no obligation to respect them?


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> That only applies to humans... Sorry... You can't apply your morality here.
> 
> and yes, they are smart enough to contest... It's a common misconception that if you try to do anything to an animal, they'll just sit there and take it...



Beasty logic.  Always a bucket of lol.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

At this point, I think I'd like to break off from this.  I believe I've said all there is to say about my position on this subject, and I'm starting to develop a reputation for being a zealot when I'm just basically jumping into the debate. There are many others who share my opinion, and the time and energy I've put into this really hasn't been worth it in light of all the other threads that have been made on this subject.

Shay, in particular I feel that my position is irreconcilable with yours, but I don't think that this is worth driving a wedge between us over. My apologies if I seem overly harsh or aggressive, or if I have said anything offensive; I very much get caught up in the heat of debate.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

> All I've seen so far is a bunch of like minded individuals beating a topic senseless with no real definitive proof of actual harm.


Prove it doesn't; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Prove it doesn't; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence



You've got it wrong, you've gotta prove it to me...


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> You've got it wrong, you've gotta prove it to me...


No...this isn't some game, I can tell by your oh-so-mature reply you have no education in the field of animal mentality and thus you don't know yourself. My request for your proof was my first post, technically I'm the first one to ask for evidence and I'm not the one trying to prove my point, if I prove my point nothing changes, and if you prove your point then the door is blown wide open and everything a vast majority of the world believes is in-fact wrong; the burden of proof falls upon you, your appeal to ignorance isn't going to work as my requested proof, either.


----------



## pheonix (Aug 24, 2009)

As long as I don't see or hear about it I could care less if it's illegal or not.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No...this isn't some game, I can tell by your oh-so-mature reply you have no education in the field of animal mentality and thus you don't know yourself. My request for your proof was my first post, technically I'm the first one to ask for evidence and I'm not the one trying to prove my point; the burden of proof falls upon you, your appeal to ignorance isn't going to work as my requested proof, either.


People study animal mentality having to do with Bestiality?


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

Ragnarok-Cookies said:


> People study animal mentality having to do with Bestiality?


No, my point was that the person wanting proof bestiality harms the animals should actually prove their own side of the fence first, to prove it doesn't harm the animal. Seeing as that will not only be much easier to find out (if it's true) but it would fall on the grounds for burden of proof, being the first one to bring it up. Studying animal mentality would have something to do with knowing if the animal is being harmed at all.


----------



## Dreaming (Aug 24, 2009)

You mean like, if everyone became like their Fursona/s?. The question is, why would anyone want to even have sex with anything that isn't anthro when everyone is a furry?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Aug 24, 2009)

Glacierwulf said:


> I'd wonder why? Lol.


 
Oh, becuase he feels you can't just say sticking your penis in an animal is wrong, you have to talk about how it's abuse and how fucks up the animals head. I just say it sick and wrong and it should end at that, but he finds that is wrong in itself becuase it was used against gays so we can't use that argument.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 24, 2009)

I have a question:

The scenario is, everyone for some unknown reason magicaly turns into anthro's overnight, would beastiality still be illegal if everyone became anthro's?


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I have a question:
> 
> The scenario is, everyone for some unknown reason magicaly turns into anthro's overnight, would beastiality still be illegal if everyone became anthro's?


Yes, bestiality isn't illegal because of inter-species reasons or because we don't have fur, it's illegal because they have the same mentality of an infant; animals can't consent.


----------



## XNexusDragonX (Aug 25, 2009)

Ok.. So.. IF by some miracle you became an anthropomorphic reincarnation of your character, an anthro dragon for example - Would you bone a non-anthro dragon? :V


----------



## Get-dancing (Aug 25, 2009)

Yes, of course it would remain illegal you needy child! Why are you asking us this!?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> No...this isn't some game, I can tell by your oh-so-mature reply you have no education in the field of animal mentality and thus you don't know yourself. My request for your proof was my first post, technically I'm the first one to ask for evidence and I'm not the one trying to prove my point, if I prove my point nothing changes, and if you prove your point then the door is blown wide open and everything a vast majority of the world believes is in-fact wrong; the burden of proof falls upon you, your appeal to ignorance isn't going to work as my requested proof, either.



Actually the burden of proof would be on whoever claims that bestiality is harmful. It doesn't matter who asked first or how many people are on one side or the other. In any case it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that there's no harm done but at current there isn't anything that shows there is harm done. If there is good reason to suggest that there is harm then why wouldn't you just show us?


----------



## Telnac (Aug 25, 2009)

I imagine the question would be a matter of consent.  Intelligent non-anthros could consent so I don't see why they couldn't have sex with anthros.

Downright screwing animals, however... not cool.  I imagine that'd remain illegal.


----------



## FoxPhantom (Aug 25, 2009)

Illegal. because if it was sex on a animal then it would be. 

but unless the person was a furry, (but not turned from an animal) then yes that would be legal.


----------



## Telnac (Aug 25, 2009)

DreamerHusky said:


> You mean like, if everyone became like their Fursona/s?. The question is, why would anyone want to even have sex with anything that isn't anthro when everyone is a furry?


You're assuming everyone would become anthros.  If I became my fursona, I would be non-anthro and I'd like to remain sexually active w/o me or my partner being dragged off to jail for beastiality.


----------



## Telnac (Aug 25, 2009)

XNexusDragonX said:


> Ok.. So.. IF by some miracle you became an anthropomorphic reincarnation of your character, an anthro dragon for example - Would you bone a non-anthro dragon? :V


If said non-anthro dragon was intelligent and could consent, yes.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Actually the burden of proof would be on whoever claims that bestiality is harmful. It doesn't matter who asked first or how many people are on one side or the other. In any case it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that there's no harm done but at current there isn't anything that shows there is harm done. If there is good reason to suggest that there is harm then why wouldn't you just show us?



You can't prove it does not cause harm either. Hence why you avoid finding any proof to back up your claims, I mean, why should we believe what you say with nout to back it up?

Would you beleive me if i said the bogey man lived on the moon?, no you wouldn't.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> You can't prove it does not cause harm either. Hence why you avoid finding any proof to back up your claims, I mean, why should we believe what you say with nout to back it up?



If it does cause harm then you could prove that though. And I have, in three other threads I believe, posted survey data where of a group of zoophiles only 2% had ever had to take an animal for medical treatment related to bestiality. So I've backed my part up, but there hasn't been any back up for harm.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If it does cause harm then you could prove that though. And I have, in three other threads I believe, posted survey data where of a group of zoophiles only 2% had ever had to take an animal for medical treatment related to bestiality. So I've backed my part up, but there hasn't been any back up for harm.


You keep bringing that up, but it's really a bullshit statistic.  I'd like to see the survey (I'm guessing it's a survey and not a study, since they wouldn't let the zoos molest the animals and check to see how many got hurt in a study) that it came from.


----------



## Telnac (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If it does cause harm then you could prove that though. And I have, in three other threads I believe, posted survey data where of a group of zoophiles only 2% had ever had to take an animal for medical treatment related to bestiality. So I've backed my part up, but there hasn't been any back up for harm.


What?!  That's like saying I beat my cats with a rubber hose, starve them for days at a time, lock them in the closet for hours b/c I think their pathetic meows are funny and I almost never clean out the cat box.  But I've never had to take them to the vet for injuries related to my horrific abuse.  So I'm doing no harm.

Bullshit.  Animal abuse is animal abuse.  It doesn't matter if you're physicially abusing the animal or sexually abusing it.  Both are harmful.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> Bullshit. Animal abuse is animal abuse. It doesn't matter if you're physicially abusing the animal or sexually abusing it. Both are harmful.



You can't say it's harmful without giving any evidence that it is harmful. You're making a huge assumption there.



> You keep bringing that up, but it's really a bullshit statistic. I'd like to see the survey (I'm guessing it's a survey and not a study, since they wouldn't let the zoos molest the animals and check to see how many got hurt in a study) that it came from.



It's from Understanding Bestiality and Zoophila by Hani Miletski.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You can't say it's harmful without giving any evidence that it is harmful. You're making a huge assumption there.


What about those at least 2% that you keep bringing up?  Does that harm not count? 




			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> It's from Understanding Bestiality and Zoophila by Hani Miletski.


A link, please?  I can't find one that actually shows me these numbers you're talking about.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> What about those at least 2% that you keep bringing up?  Does that harm not count?



Not really. Of those one person was a zoosadist and admitted to killing and raping various animals and the other's injuries might not have been been intentional or have happened during teenage years but due to the anonymous nature of the study couldn't be contacted again for clarification. In any case 2% is a very low injury frequency and certainly not the huge risk you keep making it out to be.



> A link, please?  I can't find one that actually shows me these numbers you're talking about.



It's a book. There's no link. I'm sure there are various ways of acquiring it online but none that I know. I was only able to get it from a friend of a friend.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 25, 2009)

all this talk about Beastialty....wasnt it the subject of last month? I thought this month the subject is about furs getting jailed?


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Actually the burden of proof would be on whoever claims that bestiality is harmful.


No, you're the one presenting your argument to all of us; it's globally known bestiality is wrong and if you have evidence to support the opposite the burden of proof is on you, not us.


> It doesn't matter who asked first or how many people are on one side or the other.


This is your failed attempted to go "no u", prove your argument is right already and quit stalling. Oh, what's this? You can't. Har.


> In any case it's pretty much impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that there's no harm done but at current there isn't anything that shows there is harm done. If there is good reason to suggest that there is harm then why wouldn't you just show us?


So if you can't prove it, why do you wave that around all the time?


Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You can't say it's harmful without giving any evidence that it is harmful. You're making a huge assumption there.


And what you're doing totally is all documented and researched fact. Go away, the world needs less stupid people.
You can't say it's not harmful without giving any evidence, evidence saying it is harmful are the cases that pop up where beasties actually get caught and the animal is taken away. How they get caught is usually because the animal is injured, what other evidence would there be?


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Not really. Of those one person was a zoosadist and admitted to killing and raping various animals and the other's injuries might not have been been intentional or have happened during teenage years but due to the anonymous nature of the study couldn't be contacted again for clarification. In any case 2% is a very low injury frequency and certainly not the huge risk you keep making it out to be.


I'm going to ask again how they came to this 2%.  Did they just survey 100 random people that admit to being zoos and ask "Have you ever taken your pet to the vet after you fucked it?"





			
				RG said:
			
		

> It's a book. There's no link. I'm sure there are various ways of acquiring it online but none that I know. I was only able to get it from a friend of a friend.


I know it's a book, but I just assumed you read that part on the internet.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> No, you're the one presenting your argument to all of us; it's globally known bestiality is wrong and if you have evidence to support the opposite the burden of proof is on you, not us.


You can't say it's globally known as some sort of defence. You can't make a side prove a negative. It's just not an accomplishable feat, regardless of how true it is.



> And what you're doing totally is all documented and researched fact. Go away, the world needs less stupid people.
> You can't say it's not harmful without giving any evidence, evidence saying it is harmful are the cases that pop up where beasties actually get caught and the animal is taken away. How they get caught is usually because the animal is injured, what other evidence would there be?


I've given evidence that it's not harmful. And media reports do not represent the true frequency of things. Half the time this forum is moaning about how furs are represented the wrong way by the media but now you want to claim that the way the media represents things is right. If they get caught only when the animal is injured then there must be plenty where there isn't any injury. If there are millions of people involved in bestiality but only 5 reported cases a year then doesn't that tell you something?



> I'm going to ask again how they came to this 2%. Did they just survey 100 random people that admit to being zoos and ask "Have you ever taken your pet to the vet after you fucked it?"



No. The author posted ads in various places asking for people who had sexual contact with an animal. It's a standard sort of psychology procedure in getting people for a study.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I've given evidence that it's not harmful. And media reports do not represent the true frequency of things. Half the time this forum is moaning about how furs are represented the wrong way by the media but now you want to claim that the way the media represents things is right. If they get caught only when the animal is injured then there must be plenty where there isn't any injury. If there are millions of people involved in bestiality but only 5 reported cases a year then doesn't that tell you something?


You contradict yourself so much that it makes me want to punch babies.  You just got done saying about a thousand times that you can't prove a negative, but yet you claimed to have just given evidence that show's it isn't harmful.  Where is this evidence?  The survey?  We'll get to that.  

Just because cases aren't reported or aren't discovered by the media, doesn't mean that they didn't happen.  How many people in those third world countries do you think get caught for having sex with their dog, hurting it, and it gets on CNN?  How many more don't get caught having sex with their dog and hurting it, because it's not like there's any way someone would find out unless the zoophile turned themselves in or was turned in by a family member/friend. 




			
				RG said:
			
		

> No. The author posted ads in various places asking for people who had sexual contact with an animal. It's a standard sort of psychology procedure in getting people for a study.


So, yes, I understand he surveyed 100 random anonymous admitted zoophiles.  I was asking in what way the question was asked.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 25, 2009)

@Aden: Kinda' looks like no one reads your posts.  :<


----------



## Azure (Aug 25, 2009)

This thread is stupid.  Srsly.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> No. The author posted ads in various places asking for people who had sexual contact with an animal. It's a standard sort of psychology procedure in getting people for a study.


No it's not.
That's a flawed study, it's voluntary. -Real- studies aren't done this way, you don't put an ad up requesting people who do heroin to call in for questions/a study, if nobody calls then in that case nobody does heroin and the drug is imaginary, right? If people do call and none say they had serious side effects then I assume the drug is harmless, correct?

This is a fake study, whoever did this was just some kid with a printer, a phone, and a pad of paper for notes. It's skewed and incredibly wrong.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Actually the burden of proof would be on whoever claims that bestiality is harmful. It doesn't matter who asked first


 Actually, it kind of does.  Prosecutor not being the one who's attacking something, but the one who's trying to make a claim (be it "Bestiality is not harmful" or "Bestiality is harmful).  


> You can't prove that there's no harm done but at current there isn't anything that shows there is harm done. If there is good reason to suggest that there is harm then why wouldn't you just show us?


 Not harm against animals in this link, but there is a link between bestiality and aggression. This one, however, does.  You can look to the work cited page, if you would like to delve deeper into this matter.

EDIT:  *VERY DISTURBING IMAGERY IN LINK 2.  REMAIN ON PAGE ONE IF YOU WOULD PREFER NOT TO SEE ANY SUCH IMAGES, THAT IS WHERE THE BLURB ON INJURY TO ANIMALS IS ANYWAYS*


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Not harm against animals in this link, but there is a link between bestiality and aggression. This one, however, does.  You can look to the work cited page, if you would like to delve deeper into this matter.



You should probably have mentioned that the second link contains a lot of _very_ graphic imagery involving the post-mortem autopsy of the animal.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> You should probably have mentioned that the second link contains a lot of _very_ graphic imagery involving the post-mortem autopsy of the animal.


Thank you for saving me from clicking it.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 25, 2009)

Runefox said:


> You should probably have mentioned that the second link contains a lot of _very_ graphic imagery involving the post-mortem autopsy of the animal.


Fair enough, post modified.  My apologies to anyone who read and was disturbed / sickened by the link.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 25, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> This thread is stupid.  Srsly.



Why?  Just out of curiosity...

It's a difficult debate and a question not easily answered...  Are you saying that just because there's a flood of these topics now?

I really don't think it's a stupid discussion...  At least it's more interesting than another "any furries from my state?" post.

EDIT:  Is there a way though these threads could get merged because they are all the same thing, now


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 26, 2009)

> You contradict yourself so much that it makes me want to punch babies. You just got done saying about a thousand times that you can't prove a negative, but yet you claimed to have just given evidence that show's it isn't harmful. Where is this evidence? The survey? We'll get to that.



Can't prove a negative but can offer evidence to support it. As an example you can't prove that gravity is always an attractive force and one observation to the contrary would blow that theory out of the water. But you can say that gravity is almost certainly only attractive because all the evidence we have points in that direction and we've never seen anything to contradict it. I haven't shown bestiality is never harmful but that there is a good possibility that it's not. In any case it's definately not always harmful.



> Just because cases aren't reported or aren't discovered by the media, doesn't mean that they didn't happen. How many people in those third world countries do you think get caught for having sex with their dog, hurting it, and it gets on CNN? How many more don't get caught having sex with their dog and hurting it, because it's not like there's any way someone would find out unless the zoophile turned themselves in or was turned in by a family member/friend.



Of course there are other cases but they mean nothing because you have nothing to compare them to. If 1000 animals a year are injured by bestiality it certainly seems bad but you have no idea of how many people are actually involved in bestiality. If 1 000 000 people commit bestiality a year then you only have 0.1% of animals being harmed, even less actually if you consider that a person is likely to have more than one sexual encounter. So yes it's all nice having reported cases but they don't have any context so don't provide any information.



> So, yes, I understand he surveyed 100 random anonymous admitted zoophiles.  I was asking in what way the question was asked.



She, I believe. Not all were zoophiles either. But the questions were asked in a mailed survey consisting of about 300 questions, with multiple questions asking the same thing in different ways. Apparently that increases accuracy. Some were essay questions and some were multiple choice.



> No it's not.
> That's a flawed study, it's voluntary. -Real- studies aren't done this way, you don't put an ad up requesting people who do heroin to call in for questions/a study, if nobody calls then in that case nobody does heroin and the drug is imaginary, right? If people do call and none say they had serious side effects then I assume the drug is harmless, correct?
> 
> This is a fake study, whoever did this was just some kid with a printer, a phone, and a pad of paper for notes. It's skewed and incredibly wrong.



I think you'll find all studies are voluntary. Heroin would be investigated in totally different manner because it's not a psychological condition. Also the 'kid' is a licensee sex therapist doing this study for her doctorate, which of course is supervised by various other qualified people.



> Actually, it kind of does. Prosecutor not being the one who's attacking something, but the one who's trying to make a claim (be it "Bestiality is not harmful" or "Bestiality is harmful).



This isn't a court case, it's a scientific argument. In which case whoever is making the claim must back it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence You're claiming bestiality is harmful. I say it's not and have presented what I currently have available.



> Not harm against animals in this link, but there is a link between bestiality and aggression. This one, however, does.  You can look to the work cited page, if you would like to delve deeper into this matter.



The link doesn't actually prove anything bad about bestiality. There's again no control. People who have committed crimes against people are more likely to have engaged in bestiality, but that doesn't mean that someone who engages in bestiality is more likely than not to be aggressive. A relationship between two things isn't always causal in both directions.
Also you should read the articles before you post them.
"In conclusion, although the first tentative diagnosis was sexual
abuse, no evidence of such abuse was found at necropsy."


----------



## Attaman (Aug 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> The link doesn't actually prove anything bad about bestiality.



Very first page:


			
				Article said:
			
		

> Sexual abuse of animals, also called sod-
> omy, bestiality, or zoophilia, is a taboo (9, 26, 34). It is not
> clearly deï¬ned in the literature and is considered a complex
> diagnostic and therapeutic problem that bridges human and
> ...


Then there's the abstract of source 18.


> Also you should read the articles before you post them.
> "In conclusion, although the first tentative diagnosis was sexual
> abuse, no evidence of such abuse was found at necropsy."


  And you should read the articles too.  And look to the work cited page.


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 26, 2009)

Lord are we doomed to have zoo defenders propping up straw men for the next year or so now that Dragoneer has brought the ax down? Because if so, I want a 'Hide topic" plug in.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 26, 2009)

So "Fucking animals is wrong" 
/thread.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> So "Fucking animals is wrong"
> /thread.


 
So after many many posts we finaly go back quite rightly to square 1.

bout time


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Can't prove a negative but can offer evidence to support it. As an example you can't prove that gravity is always an attractive force and one observation to the contrary would blow that theory out of the water. But you can say that gravity is almost certainly only attractive because all the evidence we have points in that direction and we've never seen anything to contradict it. I haven't shown bestiality is never harmful but that there is a good possibility that it's not. In any case it's definately not always harmful.


No, the study must be replicated several times before anything is changed.


> I think you'll find all studies are voluntary. Heroin would be investigated in totally different manner because it's not a psychological condition. Also the 'kid' is a licensee sex therapist doing this study for her doctorate, which of course is supervised by various other qualified people.


No, -actual- study's aren't voluntarily. This is University psychology, and business stuff at the first semester. One study also doesn't mean anything, like I said it has to be replicated and on a much larger scale than what one person could ever do. Most people that have injured their pets won't be ringing up the place or doing anything, phone calls aren't anonymous and thus no study is right in doing them. It's heavily, -heavily- flawed and it's why real studies are done completely different.


> This isn't a court case, it's a scientific argument. In which case whoever is making the claim must back it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence You're claiming bestiality is harmful. I say it's not and have presented what I currently have available.


Just because it isn't a court case doesn't mean the definition's change. You still have to prove your side, and seeing as you're arguing so much in attempt to get us to prove ours, even though you so nonchalantly believe to have seen studies to prove your side, I doubt you'll ever have that proof. Without proof every argument you make for pro-beastie is instantly not even worth more than the kilobytes you've wasted.


> The link doesn't actually prove anything bad about bestiality. There's again no control.


You argue control and yet you say your 2% bullshit study is right, and it clearly has none either.

You're the very definition of a hypocrite. You also continuously think absence of evidence is evidence of absence.


----------



## Aden (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> /thread.



Don't bother, they don't listen to that here. :1


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You also continuously think absence of evidence is evidence of absence.


Is this the new forum motto or something?  I swear to God, I've seen this at least 5 or 6 times in the past day and I never saw it more than once before that.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> Lord are we doomed to have zoo defenders propping up straw men for the next year or so now that Dragoneer has brought the ax down? Because if so, I want a 'Hide topic" plug in.



I don't think anyone is defending zoophilia and bestiality because of Dragoneer's decision to cut it from the site, I'd say it's more along the lines of the absolutely absurd and ignorant opinions towards bestiality, and the needless hostility towards those who don't bow down to the _popular_ opinion.

Of course there are gonna be people defending zoophilia and bestiality because of the idea being opressed, especially with redundant arguments. I would compair the arguments agaisnt bestiality with religious arguments against homosexuality...


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Can't prove a negative but can offer evidence to support it. As an example you can't prove that gravity is always an attractive force and one observation to the contrary would blow that theory out of the water. But you can say that gravity is almost certainly only attractive because all the evidence we have points in that direction and we've never seen anything to contradict it. I haven't shown bestiality is never harmful but that there is a good possibility that it's not. In any case it's definately not always harmful.






Attaman said:


> Very first page:
> 
> Then there's the abstract of source 18.
> And you should read the articles too.  And look to the work cited page.



Ok, so Rak said a negative can not be proven, when infact Attamans quote from said article does infact state a negative. Plus, imo, 100 people question against I dunno how many people in this world, is a very, very small survey to make such bold claims on.


----------



## SnowFox (Aug 26, 2009)

Don't you guys ever tire of this? I try to read it but my eyes just glaze over and my scroll wheel starts moving faster than I can skim read.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 26, 2009)

I guess you guys didn't get the memo


----------



## Gavrill (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> I would compair the arguments agaisnt bestiality with religious arguments against homosexuality...


Please don't. Those are completely different arguments.

Anyways yeah. To me bestiality just isn't worth any harm you may inflict upon an animal.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> I don't think anyone is defending zoophilia and bestiality because of Dragoneer's decision to cut it from the site, I'd say it's more along the lines of the absolutely absurd and ignorant opinions towards bestiality, and the needless hostility towards those who don't bow down to the _popular_ opinion.
> 
> Of course there are gonna be people defending zoophilia and bestiality because of the idea being opressed, especially with redundant arguments. I would compair the arguments agaisnt bestiality with religious arguments against homosexuality...


Or, you know, people could be defending bestiality because they're dogfuckers. Also, rude opinions =\=ignorant.  The hostility isn't needless because dogfuckers can hurt their animals severely.  

Except, you know, gays can both consent and express emotions and feelings.  They also don't run as great of a risk of internal bleeding and dying.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

"Dog fuckers" can hurt their animals as much as "non-dog fuckers", like I said, it's all ignorant copy-paste arguments without any proof reading. And did you just say 





> They also don't run as great of a risk of internal bleeding and dying.


 this just further proves your ignorance.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> "Dog fuckers" can hurt their animals as much as "non-dog fuckers", like I said, it's all ignorant copy-paste arguments without any proof reading.


You make me laugh.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Same shit, different thread. >.>


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> I don't think anyone is defending zoophilia and bestiality because of Dragoneer's decision to cut it from the site, I'd say it's more along the lines of the absolutely absurd and ignorant opinions towards bestiality, and the needless hostility towards those who don't bow down to the _popular_ opinion.
> 
> Of course there are gonna be people defending zoophilia and bestiality because of the idea being opressed, especially with redundant arguments. I would compair the arguments agaisnt bestiality with religious arguments against homosexuality...



Children can consent. And those who would engage in sexual acts with them, are even more oppressed then zoo's. There's lots of absurd and ignorant opinions towards pedos, right?  If your going to bring the strawmen out, so can I. So let's hear your reasoning on this, you and the other zoo defender.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You make me laugh.



Thats called arrogance, it's a natural defense mechanism for when your ego is threatened...



Foxstar said:


> Children can consent. And those who would engages in sexual acts with them, are even more oppressed then zoo's. There's lots of absurd and ignorant opinions towards pedos, right? If your going to bring the strawmen out, so can I.



Show me a 5 year old who can support a child and can get steady job too keep food on the table.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 26, 2009)

when an animal says " fuck me" and knows what its saying I may change my standpoint. But till then....
 animals + people  + sex = Sick fuck.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 26, 2009)

> Very first page:



If you read source 18's abstract, since we can't see the full version, it only talks about looking at three calves. You can't base such a general statement if you've only looked at a case study of three individuals. So there's still no sign form where their data is coming from, and it seems as though it's based on onlythree individuals. Also, as I have mentioned, there are cases where animals are injured through bestiality but if we don't know how often that happens we can't get a good guess on how often harm is involved. Also that sort of abuse is not a part of zoophilia, which is what I'm more interested in defending, and would fall into zoosadism, a completely different phenomenon.



> No, the study must be replicated several times before anything is changed.



But you get the point. The replication isn't new examples, it's just confirmation.



> No, -actual- study's aren't voluntarily. This is University psychology, and business stuff at the first semester. One study also doesn't mean anything, like I said it has to be replicated and on a much larger scale than what one person could ever do. Most people that have injured their pets won't be ringing up the place or doing anything, phone calls aren't anonymous and thus no study is right in doing them. It's heavily, -heavily- flawed and it's why real studies are done completely different.



You can't force people to fill out a questionnaire. People who are causing injury are not the ones that shouldn't be punished. The thing is that some people deliberately hurt the animals but that is not due to the sex itself.



> You still have to prove your side, and seeing as you're arguing so much in attempt to get us to prove ours, even though you so nonchalantly believe to have seen studies to prove your side, I doubt you'll ever have that proof.



You need to prove yours too. And paying attention to the different motivations of people engaging in bestiality.



> You argue control and yet you say your 2% bullshit study is right, and it clearly has none either.



It's a descriptive study of people who have had sex with animals, not a comparitive study with people who haven't. Obviosly people who haven't had sex with animals have 0% injuries due to sex.



> Ok, so Rak said a negative can not be proven, when infact Attamans quote from said article does infact state a negative. Plus, imo, 100 people question against I dunno how many people in this world, is a very, very small survey to make such bold claims on.



Not meant to describe all the people in the world. Only those who are zoophiles, since that was the majority of the study group.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Thats called arrogance, it's a natural defense mechanism for when your ego is threatened...


Nah, it's called a sense of humor.  I find stupidity hilarious, for the most part.  Your defense for bestiality was that "not only beasties hurt their animals!!!"  You're trying to defend bestiality, but the way you just tried to do so was to link it to regular animal abuse, thereby completely proving the opposite.  Sure, non dog fuckers can hurt their pets, and they go to jail for it.  Dogfuckers hurt their pets and go to jail for it as well, as we stand right now.  I'm not seeing the problem.   

Stop trying to sound intelligent, it doesn't work for you, Shay.




			
				Shay said:
			
		

> Show me a 5 year old who can support a child and can get steady job too keep food on the table.


Show me a dog that can.


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 26, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> You make me laugh.



Zoo logic is always a laugh. Even shrinks laugh themselves silly over it.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> "Dog fuckers" can hurt their animals as much as "non-dog fuckers", like I said,


  And I'm trying to determine whether this is a straw man or a red herring.  "Non-dog-fuckers" are not a part of this debate (which is leaning towards the Red Herring bit), but then you're trying to refute the view that dog-fuckers are bad because they're not the only ones who hurt their animals (and I'd say this is a misrepresentation of what's being argued).


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> when an animal says " fuck me" and knows what its saying I may change my standpoint. But till then....
> animals + people  + sex = Sick fuck.



Maybe when hell freezes over, people here might make solid anti-bestiality arguments rather than posting extreme opinions and false information.


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Show me a 5 year old who can support a child and can get steady job too keep food on the table.



And that has what to do with it? FYI, before child labor laws were enacted, children were supporting the family as soon as they could walk and talk. Your going to have to do better then that.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If you read source 18's abstract, since we can't see the full version, it only talks about looking at three calves. You can't base such a general statement if you've only looked at a case study of three individuals. So there's still no sign form where their data is coming from, and it seems as though it's based on onlythree individuals. Also, as I have mentioned, there are cases where animals are injured through bestiality but if we don't know how often that happens we can't get a good guess on how often harm is involved. Also that sort of abuse is not a part of zoophilia, which is what I'm more interested in defending, and would fall into zoosadism, a completely different phenomenon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think there is more than 100 zoophiles on the planet. 100 self admitted zoophiles asked is still quite a small number.  Surveys like that should be carried out repeatedly. And of course, A zoophile would only say possitive things about what they do, to them, negatives don't exist. I'd rather speak to a vet who has treated animals with related injuries.


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Maybe when hell freezes over, people here might make solid anti-bestiality arguments rather than posting extreme opinions and false information.



So go devote 10 years of your life or more into animal behavior studies and then come back and refute the people who know what they are talking about.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Maybe when hell freezes over, people here might make solid anti-bestiality arguments rather than posting extreme opinions and false information.


 I just firmly believe in not raping things. and if it cannot say  "yes" its rape. Cut and dry
  and solid as rock.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Attaman said:


> And I'm trying to determine whether this is a straw man or a red herring.  "Non-dog-fuckers" are not a part of this debate (which is leaning towards the Red Herring bit), but then you're trying to refute the view that dog-fuckers are bad because they're not the only ones who hurt their animals (and I'd say this is a misrepresentation of what's being argued).



Your argument is solely based upon animal harm... And since harm _unquestionably_ comes to animals from people who don't fuck them...

It's a fact that people who _love_ their pets take better care of them...


----------



## Attaman (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Maybe when hell freezes over, people here might make solid anti-bestiality arguments rather than posting extreme opinions and false information.


  How dare we argue it hurts animals and provide links to novels and articles!  Curse us for making extreme opinions and providing blatantly false information!


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

Goddammit growlithe! We aren't trying to say beastiality is bad every time it's done! We are saying there is a chance it can cause physica; and mental damage to the animals and for the animals sake it's not worth the chance!


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I just firmly believe in not raping things. and if it cannot say "yes" its rape. Cut and dry
> and solid as rock.


 
Can't we all just agree with this, it would make things alot easyer.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Your argument is solely based upon animal harm... And since harm _unquestionably_ comes to animals from people who don't fuck them...
> 
> It's a fact that people who _love_ their pets take better care of them...


It's a fact that people who love their pets wouldn't risk hurting the animal to get their rocks off.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I just firmly believe in not raping things. and if it cannot say  "yes" its rape. Cut and dry
> and solid as rock.



What if a girl couldn't speak? She can't say yes, so she's not allowed to consent?

So you are telling me that if by some reason I loose the ability to speak through verbal communications, I can no longer consent to sex?


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> What if a girl couldn't speak? She can't say yes, so she's not allowed to consent?


 
sign language


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> What if a girl couldn't speak? She can't say yes, so she's not allowed to consent?


She can write yes or use sign language to say yes.  Stop trolling.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Maybe when hell freezes over, people here might make solid anti-bestiality arguments rather than posting extreme opinions and false information.



If you fuck with their behind, you fuck with ther head. Case closed, you're a sick freak... Or moreso than other furries.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> It's a fact that people who love their pets wouldn't risk hurting the animal to get their rocks off.



Exactly, when zoophiles try to fuck their animals they do so in such a manner they make sure their animal is not harmed.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 26, 2009)

> I think there is more than 100 zoophiles on the planet. 100 self admitted zoophiles asked is still quite a small number. Surveys like that should be carried out repeatedly. And of course, A zoophile would only say possitive things about what they do, to them, negatives don't exist. I'd rather speak to a vet who has treated animals with related injuries.



I agree but it's a start and pointing in a certain direction. Personally I don't really care about the psychology behind it. I want to see research done on the effect on animals. But that's not something I'm in a position to research and most people don't care about animals so it'll probably be years before that research is ever done.



> Goddammit growlithe! We aren't trying to say beastiality is bad every time it's done! We are saying there is a chance it can cause physica; and mental damage to the animals and for the animals sake it's not worth the chance!



But the problem is I think you're exaggerating that chance. Especially considering certain actions are almost entirely risk free. e.g. oral sex. Iaslo think by exaggerating that chance you're punishing people for something that they needn't be punished for.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

szopaw said:


> If you fuck with their behind, you fuck with ther head. Case closed, you're a sick freak... Or moreso than other furries.



If you blindly believe that an animal is fucked with mentally from sex, you are stupid, more so than the furries in this thread. Your a stupid freak :3


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> But the problem is I think you're exaggerating that chance. Especially considering certain actions are almost entirely risk free. e.g. oral sex. Iaslo think by exaggerating that chance you're punishing people for something that they needn't be punished for.



agreed


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 26, 2009)

Find me medical journals that states its safe and smart to fuck animals that are well supported and not written by excommunicated Vets and doctors and come back then.

after searching for a few hours you will see... THERE ARE NONE.
and the ones that do exist are on par with the ones that say smoking does not kill you.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Taking all bets

3-1 someone will be banned by the time this thread is locked
2-1 on a flame war 
10-1 this thread will be derailed by this post.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Find me medical journals that states its safe and smart to fuck animals that are well supported and not written by excommunicated Vets and doctors and come back then.
> 
> after searching for a few hours you will see... THERE ARE NONE.
> and the ones that do exist are on par with the ones that say smoking does not kill you.



Find me a medical journal that states that it is not safe to fuck animals, and by safe I mean for the animal... Until you can find me _unbiased_ and absolutely _unquestionable_ proof that giving oral sex to your dog fucks him up beyond repair, you are just spouting opinions... Why do you think it's still legal in several area, and even encouraged in Brazil?


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> If you blindly believe that an animal is fucked with mentally from sex, you are stupid, more so than the furries in this thread. Your a stupid freak :3



No one understands the mind of an animal, wouldn't it be best not to take the risk?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Maybe when hell freezes over, people here might make solid anti-bestiality arguments rather than posting extreme opinions and false information.



People are entitled to their own opinion, extreme or not.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> No one understands the mind of an animal, wouldn't it be best not to take the risk?


 
Good Man


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Find me a medical journal that states that it is not safe to fuck animals, and by safe I mean for the animal... Until you can find me _unbiased_ and absolutely _unquestionable_ proof that giving oral sex to your dog fucks him up beyond repair, you are just spouting opinions... Why do you think it's still legal in several area, and even encouraged in Brazil?



Do  I spy another zoo here?


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> ~Stuff~


 I won't argue with you anymore, I have morals and do not support animal rape. Really the mental health of someone who finds this appealing should be questioned and that is all I will say I feel like I am speaking to a brick wall a really perverted fucked up brick wall.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 26, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> Taking all bets
> 
> 3-1 someone will be banned by the time this thread is locked
> 2-1 on a flame war
> 10-1 this thread will be derailed by this post.



I'll take the last bet :3


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Eli said:


> I'll take the last bet :3


 
about time this threads depressing


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 26, 2009)

I can't jerk off to this!


----------



## Attaman (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Find me a medical journal that states that it is not safe to fuck animals, and by safe I mean for the animal... Until you can find me _unbiased_ and absolutely _unquestionable_ proof that giving oral sex to your dog fucks him up beyond repair, you are just spouting opinions... Why do you think it's still legal in several area, and even encouraged in Brazil?


 Oh, look what we're engaging in now.  If we cannot prove it, it means the other side is instantly right.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> No one understands the mind of an animal, wouldn't it be best not to take the risk?



We don't understand alot of things, but it doesn't stop us from taking risks. So, it's best for individuals to decide, not for others to tell them it's wrong.



RandyDarkshade said:


> People are entitled to their own opinion, extreme or not.



I'm entitled to mine as well



RandyDarkshade said:


> Do  I spy another zoo here?



Whether I am or not is not a concern for anyone here, and lets just say that I am... Nothing you can do about it but harass me because it's legal in my state... And I'm not breaking forum rules...


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 26, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Do  I spy another zoo here?



SLOOOOWWW.

I spotted him within two posts.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> giving oral sex to your dog



Whe the fuck would you do that? I mean WHY the fuck.


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> We don't understand alot of things, but it doesn't stop us from taking risks. So, it's best for individuals to decide, not for others to tell them it's wrong.



That doesn't sound very fair on the animal.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> SLOOOOWWW.
> 
> I spotted him within two posts.



*rolls eyes* for as much as I care, all of you fuck animals.


----------



## Azure (Aug 26, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Why? Just out of curiosity...
> 
> It's a difficult debate and a question not easily answered... Are you saying that just because there's a flood of these topics now?
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity what? Is animal fucking ok if were a bunch of anthros? No. Why? Sapience, that's why. People fail to realize that we are still MAMMALS. We are animals, who happen to have advanced mental faculties. Sprouting a bunch of fur and a cute tail changes nothing, unless we become feral, and unreasoning. Then, we'd be on the same level as animals, thus, it would be ok for us to rape the shit out of them. 

Bottom line, animals cannot give informed consent to sexual activity, and, being their guardians and friends, we cannot, in good conscience, pretend to be able to interpret it for them. It will never be awwwwwwwright to fuck a dog, just like it's not ok for us to fuck children, or picnic tables.

EDIT- Picnic tables are probably a better lay than a dog anyway.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> That doesn't sound very fair on the animal.



Life isn't fair... It's not fair that I can't get a loan for schooling because I don't have credit. It's not fair that kids in Africa have to starve and suffer from deseases when we have the ability to help them out easily... Why should life be fair for animals when it isn't even fair for us?

And it's not fair that my dog has to remain chained up because my neighbor's dog wants to constantly attack him... But there we have it... Life isn't fair.


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> *rolls eyes* for as much as I care, all of you fuck animals.



... wow, for some reason that made me wat to listen to Closer by Nine Inch Nails.  That song will now forever e ruined ;_;



Shay Feral said:


> Life isn't fair... It's not fair that I can't get a loan for schooling because I don't have credit. It's not fair that kids in Africa have to starve and suffer from deseases when we have the ability to help them out easily... Why should life be fair for animals when it isn't even fair for us?



Wow.  Best argument for bestiality evar :V


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 26, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> Can't we all just agree with this, it would make things alot easyer.



We tried that 160 posts ago.


----------



## Aurali (Aug 26, 2009)

I wonder if Shay is gonna rage quit this forum too... Or out himself..

Heh, Anyone who thinks that having sex with an animal doesn't do damage can fuck themselves, even Zoophile forums say NOT to do it. It does damage the creatures body that wasn't meant to sustain the size and shape of a human.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 26, 2009)

who wants to bet me five bucks and/or a gram of pot that Shay Feral will an hero over this


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 26, 2009)

*REQUESTING LOCK OF THIS THREAD*.
 I honestly suggest to lock all discussions on pro/Anti Bestiality to maintain a more pristine reputation on this site. We need to attract less Drama as is.


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Out of curiosity what? Is animal fucking ok if were a bunch of anthros?  No.  Why? Sapience, that's why. People fail to realize that we are still MAMMALS.  We are animals, who happen to have advanced mental faculties. Sprouting a bunch of fur and a cute tail changes nothing, unless we become feral, and unreasoning.  Then, we'd be on the same level as animals, thus, it would be ok for us to rape the shit out of them.
> 
> Bottom line, animals cannot give informed consent to sexual activity, and, being their guardians and friends, we cannot, in good conscience, pretend to be able to interpret it for them. It will never be awwwwwwwright to fuck a dog, just like it's not ok for us to fuck children, or picnic tables.




But I love my picnic table and she loves me too 

But in all seriousness I agree with everything you said.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

This arguement is like a wheel, all it does is go round and round and round and round in circles with the same damn arguements bought up in each thread this debate has arised in.

Why is either side even bothering?........Come to think of it, why am I even bothering?


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Eli said:


> I wonder if Shay is gonna rage quit this forum too... Or out himself..
> 
> Heh, Anyone who thinks that having sex with an animal doesn't do damage can fuck themselves, even Zoophile forums say NOT to do it. It does damage the creatures body that wasn't meant to sustain the size and shape of a human.



You are the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen Eli...


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> *REQUESTING LOCK OF THIS THREAD*.
> I honestly suggest to lock all discussions on pro/Anti Bestiality to maintain a more pristine reputation on this site. We need to attract less Drama as is.


 

For the first time I agree with a thread locking. This is depressing and no point is being put across.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> who wants to bet me five bucks and/or a gram of pot that Shay Feral will an hero over this



I don't think so. That needs the presence of some degree of dignity left to be hurt.



RandyDarkshade said:


> This arguement is like a wheel, all it does is go round and round and round and round in circles with the same damn arguements bought up in each thread this debate has arised in.
> 
> Why is either side even bothering?........Come to think of it, why am I even bothering?



Because both parties are very very retarded, very very bored or both.


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Life isn't fair... It's not fair that I can't get a loan for schooling because I don't have credit. It's not fair that kids in Africa have to starve and suffer from deseases when we have the ability to help them out easily... Why should life be fair for animals when it isn't even fair for us?
> 
> And it's not fair that my dog has to remain chained up because my neighbor's dog wants to constantly attack him... But there we have it... Life isn't fair.





AHAHAHAHA XD. So what you are saying is ''Bad things already happen, so why should I care if I I ruin the life of animals, it happens anyway''

Admitting that it would be incredibly selfish to have sex with an animal.


----------



## Azure (Aug 26, 2009)

Eli said:


> I wonder if Shay is gonna rage quit this forum too... Or out himself..
> 
> Heh, Anyone who thinks that having sex with an animal doesn't do damage can fuck themselves, even Zoophile forums say NOT to do it. It does damage the creatures body that wasn't meant to sustain the size and shape of a human.


 I C wut u did thar *.-


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> But I love my picnic table and she loves me too
> 
> But in all seriousness I agree with everything you said.



I love my vacuum cleaner too, and it loves me, and we live together, and share a bed and live happily ever after!


----------



## Aurali (Aug 26, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> *REQUESTING LOCK OF THIS THREAD*.
> I honestly suggest to lock all discussions on pro/Anti Bestiality to maintain a more pristine reputation on this site. We need to attract less Drama as is.



Can we get this for the chat too? Jesus christ... moderating a chat on this topic is like suicide.


----------



## Duality Jack (Aug 26, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> For the first time I agree with a thread locking. This is depressing and no point is being put across.


 Especially as the administration has chosen a standpoint already. Fighting it won't help.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Should we try thread derailment? that should get the thread locked.


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

Eli said:


> Can we get this for the chat too? Jesus christ... moderating a chat on this topic is like suicide.



But I enjoy a good arguement =[


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> AHAHAHAHA XD. So what you are saying is ''Bad things already happen, so why should I care if I I ruin the life of animals, it happens anyway''
> 
> Admitting that it would be incredibly selfish to have sex with an animal.



It's incredibly selfish to force your views upon someone else... Don't talk to me about "fairness", don't talk to me about "selfishness" because you and apparently everyone in support of "anti-bestiality" is selfish, and unfair with their objection.

You guys post ignornant arguments and expect us to agree with you... Not gonna happen... sorry... No amount of arrogance and buddying up with your pals is gonna make you right.


----------



## Azure (Aug 26, 2009)

ITS A PIECE OF CAKE TO BAKE A PRETTY CAEK,

IF THE WAY IS HAZY, YOU GOTTA DO THE COOKIN BY THE BOOK, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T BE LAZY, NEVER USE A MESSY RECIPE, THE CAKE WILL END UP CRAZY, ALWAYS DO THE COOKIN BY THE BOOK, THEN YOU'LL HAVE A CAEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Should we try thread derailment? that should get the thread locked.


 
We should put our nefarious powers together and summon CORTO.

INB4LOCK, UMMMMM, INB4LOCK, UMMMMMM, INB4LOCK, UMMMMM

BY THE POWER OF THE MODERATOR UNDERWORLD WE SUMMON THE TO LOCK THIS THREAD.


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> It's incredibly selfish to force your penis upon someone else... Don't talk to me about "fairness", don't talk to me about "selfishness" because you and apparently everyone in support of "bestiality" is selfish, and unfair with their objection.
> 
> You guys post ignornant arguments and expect us to agree with you... Not gonna happen... sorry... No amount of arrogance and buddying up with your pals is gonna make you right.



Fixed <.<


----------



## Attaman (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> It's incredibly selfish to force your views upon someone else...


  Isn't that exactly what's being done by the pro-bestiality side as well?
"I don't like bestiality, I think it's disgus-"
"YOU ARE JUST BEING MEAN & POPULAR IF YOU LOVE YOUR PET YOU CAN SHAG IT ESPECIALLY IF IT LOVES YOU TOO YOU-"


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> It's incredibly selfish to force your views upon someone else... Don't talk to me about "fairness", don't talk to me about "selfishness" because you and apparently everyone in support of "anti-bestiality" is selfish, and unfair with their objection.
> 
> You guys post ignornant arguments and expect us to agree with you... Not gonna happen... sorry... No amount of arrogance and buddying up with your pals is gonna make you right.




Yes, I'm so selfish in caring about the welfare of animals and wanting to convince people not to abuse them. I should be a nice guy and just let you do something which is animal abuse because I'm such a meanie for trying to stop you.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> It's incredibly selfish to force your views upon someone else... Don't talk to me about "fairness", don't talk to me about "selfishness" because you and apparently everyone in support of "anti-bestiality" is selfish, and unfair with their objection.
> 
> You guys post ignornant arguments and expect us to agree with you... Not gonna happen... sorry... No amount of arrogance and buddying up with your pals is gonna make you right.



We ain't the ignorant ones here. Besides, by replying to our posts is basicaly forcing YOUR opinions on us. two way street. None of you zoos have come back with a decent enough arguement to show there is nothing wrong with fucking your budgie.

Come to think of it, neither side has provided much proof for either side of the arguement, all it has been is a flame war. this happens everytime this subject arises, it is never a true debate, never a decent arguement, it always turns into a flame war.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> Fixed <.<



How can you fix what isn't broken?



Attaman said:


> Isn't that exactly what's being done by the pro-bestiality side as well?
> "I don't like bestiality, I think it's disgus-"
> "YOU ARE JUST BEING MEAN & POPULAR IF YOU LOVE YOUR PET YOU CAN SHAG IT ESPECIALLY IF IT LOVES YOU TOO YOU-"



From what I've seen it's mostly from the anti-bestiality side. Unless you absolutely believe your overly bastardized and capitialized quotation is what everyone has said... Then I suggest you go to the eye doctor.



RandyDarkshade said:


> We ain't the ignorant ones here. Besides, by replying to our posts is basicaly forcing YOUR opinions on us. two way street. None of you zoos have come back with a decent enough arguement to show there is nothing wrong with fucking your budgie.



Oh, yes, people are ignorant here. 





> The girls who do bestiality videos are *all* paid actresses


 I'd have to say that was the most retarded post I've ever seen in a very long time.



RandyDarkshade said:


> Come to think of it, neither side has provided much proof for either side of the arguement, all it has been is a flame war. this happens everytime this subject arises, it is never a true debate, never a decent arguement, it always turns into a flame war.


 I can agree with you to a point on this, I haven't been here for very long but stepping into this thread made me feel like I stepped into /b/


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> We should put our nefarious powers together and summon CORTO.
> 
> INB4LOCK, UMMMMM, INB4LOCK, UMMMMMM, INB4LOCK, UMMMMM
> 
> BY THE POWER OF THE MODERATOR UNDERWORLD WE SUMMON THE TO LOCK THIS THREAD.



I think we should try reporting it. But I didn't make a course for that :V



Shay Feral said:


> How can you fix what isn't broken?



That's your opinion. Happily, you're vastly outnumbered in it.


----------



## Azure (Aug 26, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> ITS A PIECE OF CAKE TO BAKE A PRETTY CAEK,
> 
> IF THE WAY IS HAZY, YOU GOTTA DO THE COOKIN BY THE BOOK, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T BE LAZY, NEVER USE A MESSY RECIPE, THE CAKE WILL END UP CRAZY, ALWAYS DO THE COOKIN BY THE BOOK, THEN YOU'LL HAVE A CAEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 Dude, bitchin song. You should do the Pirate Song next.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> How can you fix what isn't broken?


 
You remind me of the guy from the tell tale heart.


----------



## Azure (Aug 26, 2009)

Yar har fiddle dee dee
Being a dogfuckers alright with me
Fuck what you want, it's ok you'll see
You are a dogfucker


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> How can you fix what isn't broken?



A better question would be, "why would i try to fix that which is irreparable?"


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Yar har fiddle dee dee
> Being a dogfuckers alright with me
> Fuck what you want, it's ok you'll see
> You are a dogfucker



LMAO! that was epic. I am tempted to sig that XD


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Dude, bitchin song. You should do the Pirate Song next.



Bah.

*
Nulla id sem elit, vel elementum enim. Donec tristique molestie justo, ac pharetra metus gravida placerat. Suspendisse ut orci in velit pulvinar sollicitudin id a mauris. Suspendisse laoreet molestie dignissim. Nullam molestie diam vel lorem viverra placerat. Nam eleifend diam non felis rutrum adipiscing. Vestibulum nec tellus ac risus luctus eleifend in in velit. Phasellus quis libero lectus. Pellentesque laoreet fermentum lobortis. Nunc nec nibh neque, eu tempor nibh. Vivamus a nibh lectus. Integer sit amet eros mi, et tempus mi. Integer dignissim suscipit purus, sit amet hendrerit tellus hendrerit ut. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed at sollicitudin nunc. Fusce id leo erat. Pellentesque id nisl eros, et cursus velit. Cras quis sem ipsum.

Donec ut lacus vel sem ultrices laoreet quis at elit. Vivamus mattis mollis leo et aliquam. Aliquam accumsan orci consectetur odio condimentum ut posuere justo euismod. Donec eget venenatis nisl. Ut orci augue, iaculis a placerat quis, tempus tristique felis. Sed ligula sapien, rutrum vitae ultrices vel, dignissim nec odio. Donec dignissim fermentum magna quis tempus. Mauris dui nibh, pellentesque nec ultricies vel, lacinia eu tellus. Nam et eleifend nisi. Nunc molestie enim quis magna semper aliquam. Aliquam quis suscipit arcu. Curabitur quis quam non velit volutpat euismod. Curabitur ultricies viverra magna in convallis. Pellentesque tempor tortor eget libero fermentum id lacinia magna blandit. Pellentesque eleifend dictum fringilla. Curabitur suscipit fringilla diam ut rutrum. Proin sit amet massa lectus. Praesent diam arcu, varius nec pretium mollis, dignissim at ligula.

Quisque vel erat non augue porta volutpat a at elit. Proin vel nisi dolor, vitae lobortis purus. Vivamus et eros ac leo cursus blandit. Maecenas velit mi, varius at tincidunt ac, gravida a tortor. Quisque dignissim, sem ut ultrices dictum, mauris arcu vehicula metus, quis rutrum quam tortor sed lectus. Phasellus sit amet malesuada mauris. Nulla dapibus quam sit amet lorem ultricies vestibulum. Aliquam sed arcu dui. Morbi blandit, augue at porta ornare, magna leo tincidunt sem, eget scelerisque nibh justo nec turpis. Aenean fermentum odio sit amet enim tincidunt hendrerit. Donec eget urna tortor, eu aliquam mauris. Ut commodo pretium ligula at sollicitudin. Suspendisse potenti.

Etiam convallis sapien vehicula massa tempus vehicula. Integer sollicitudin lectus a elit accumsan et vulputate felis dictum. Donec semper commodo consequat. Praesent dictum neque cursus nisl feugiat et lobortis sapien suscipit. Sed fringilla massa sed est aliquam mollis. Proin vel eleifend dolor. Duis ornare elementum diam, sit amet ornare enim lacinia ac. Fusce facilisis magna rutrum tellus semper non ornare purus viverra. Sed convallis, mauris a luctus ultricies, leo nunc pharetra metus, eget elementum justo nibh ut urna. Cras enim nisi, molestie sit amet porttitor et, iaculis ac arcu. Integer at ante in urna venenatis consectetur.

Aliquam quis arcu id urna vestibulum convallis. Nulla sit amet libero a lorem dictum fringilla. Aliquam at nisi in nulla sagittis tincidunt pharetra vitae risus. Nunc pulvinar, nisi sit amet vulputate egestas, massa nisi faucibus quam, at pretium lorem enim eu metus. Ut sodales ipsum eget turpis varius rhoncus. Nunc ut est ut arcu hendrerit convallis sit amet nec lacus. Morbi eget mauris nec ipsum aliquam pulvinar et sit amet felis. Sed sit amet quam quis nisl gravida pulvinar at scelerisque magna. Aenean massa nunc, egestas vitae posuere ut, fermentum at nibh. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Etiam vestibulum, velit non mattis mollis, sapien eros convallis enim, eget aliquam metus diam at nisl. Nullam vehicula, eros vel ullamcorper vehicula, sapien arcu porttitor diam, ut sodales tortor arcu at libero.*


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

Grimfang if your watching save us all


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Bah.
> 
> *
> Nulla id sem elit, vel elementum enim. Donec tristique molestie justo, ac pharetra metus gravida placerat. Suspendisse ut orci in velit pulvinar sollicitudin id a mauris. Suspendisse laoreet molestie dignissim. Nullam molestie diam vel lorem viverra placerat. Nam eleifend diam non felis rutrum adipiscing. Vestibulum nec tellus ac risus luctus eleifend in in velit. Phasellus quis libero lectus. Pellentesque laoreet fermentum lobortis. Nunc nec nibh neque, eu tempor nibh. Vivamus a nibh lectus. Integer sit amet eros mi, et tempus mi. Integer dignissim suscipit purus, sit amet hendrerit tellus hendrerit ut. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam erat volutpat. Sed at sollicitudin nunc. Fusce id leo erat. Pellentesque id nisl eros, et cursus velit. Cras quis sem ipsum.
> ...



Xnay on the Atinlay


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

What about the people who don't want the thread locked?


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> A better question would be, "why would i try to fix that which is irreparable?"



If it's not broken then technically it's irreparable, because repair work is not needed.


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> Grimfang if your watching save us all



He is too busy sipping his frou frou coffee drinks and lolling at us mere mortals.



Shay Feral said:


> If it's not broken then technically it's irreparable, because repair work is not needed.



Connotation is a fun concept :3


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> Xnay on the Atinlay



Wait, what?



Zoopedia said:


> What about the people who don't want the thread locked?



They should shoot themselves.

Besides, you have one more. There's no need for more threads about dogfuckers. Do another religion thread or sth.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

They should turn this into a movie I call samuel jackson.


----------



## Grimfang (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> It's not fair that kids in Africa have to starve and suffer from deseases when we have the ability to help them out easily... Why should life be fair for animals when it isn't even fair for us?



Oh wow.



Shay Feral said:


> It's incredibly selfish to force your views upon someone else... Don't talk to me about "fairness", don't talk to me about "selfishness" because you and apparently everyone in support of "anti-bestiality" is selfish, and unfair with their objection.



Neutrally speaking, you have very similar traits to you own opinions and arguments.



Shay Feral said:


> You guys post ignornant arguments and expect us to agree with you...



See first quote.


But yeah, please don't spam it up, guys. Some might want to continue this never-ending battle of uncompromising durr.

Edit: unless someone else wants to lock this, or people just want to argue semantics.. god.. must go back to something else


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

chrispenguin said:


> They should turn this into a movie I call samuel jackson.



Why would you call a movie samuel jackson?



Grimfang said:


> But yeah, please don't spam it up, guys. Some might want to continue this never-ending battle of uncompromising durr.



http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=49032

Bad mod :V


----------



## ChrisPanda (Aug 26, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Why would you call a movie samuel jackson?


 
no i meant to the stand he's testifying at my court case.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Nocturne said:


> Connotation is a fun concept :3



Arrogance is a terrible concept especially when paired with logic, cos it just doesn't mix.


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

I for one am completely in support of Bestiality.  I think people should strive to do their best in everything they do.  What's wrong with a can do attitude?

Do your best-ality!  Thats a quality I admire :3


Shay Feral said:


> Arrogance is a terrible concept especially when paired with logic, cos it just doesn't mix.



It is now arrogant to know what words mean.


----------



## Irreverent (Aug 26, 2009)

Hopelessly Derailed.......


----------

