# 2 to 8 percent of the population zoophilic (not furry)



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2009)

I saw this in an article linked to by another forum:





> Most researchers believe 2 to 8 percent of the population harbors forbidden desires toward animals



Is it really this many?  I've always thought there was an extraordinary amount of zoos into furry but this makes it seem a lot more normal than what I thought.


----------



## Takun (Aug 22, 2009)

A gem from the article.



> James (not his real name) was wary of a prosecutor's subpoena for _New Times_ phone records. So he insisted we talk only through secondlife.com, an online role-playing game. Having created an avatar, I was asked to go to an uninhabited island where we could talk without bumping into others. James had a wolf's head and a big bushy tail, but he walked upright and wore a man's clothing. Speaking through microphones on our computers, he told me he was a middle-aged white man from the "upper Midwest."



Oh furries, lol.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 22, 2009)

Does this mean animals including anthropomorphic ones, or actual animals...I doubt it's more than 2%, seeing as it say's two percent ( 135 580 000 people) to eight percent ( 542 320 000 people) it's a rather large window; they're not lying (well the numbers could be incorrect, which they most likely are) but they're stretching what they consider to be the truth without it being fabrication. Common tactic to make a small percentile seem larger is to skew it with the possibility of more, even though no evidence supports the possibility; two to eight, twenty to eighty.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 22, 2009)

The difference between 2% and 8% is *more than the entire American population* or most other countries, even the US and a bunch of countries combined.

An entire country worth of dogfuckers.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Does this mean animals including anthropomorphic ones, or actual animals...I doubt it's more than 2%, seeing as it say's two percent ( 135 580 000 people) to eight percent ( 542 320 000 people) it's a rather large window; they're not lying (well the numbers could be incorrect, which they most likely are) but they're stretching what they consider to be the truth without it being fabrication. Common tactic to make a small percentile seem larger is to skew it with the possibility of more, even though no evidence supports the possibility; two to eight, twenty to eighty.




It is research which generally tries to be objective.  I don't know any reason they would obscure the facts, but who knows.

The only article I could find on PubMed with relevant information seems to hint that this might not be far off at all but it costs money if you want the full text.



> Although estimates of the prevalence of zoophilia are not possible at this time, it appears that zoophilia is not as rare as once thought and shares many features with other atypical sexual interests.



As far as anthro or not I'm not sure how that would count...  People can be attracted to one and not the other.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 22, 2009)

Yes, but if they were counting -anything- that had to do with "animals", real or anthro, then perhaps the numbers are closer to being correct...seeing as the target is a broader number.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes, but if they were counting -anything- that had to do with "animals", real or anthro, then perhaps the numbers are closer to being correct...seeing as the target is a broader number.



Yeah...  It almost makes me want to buy the journal article to find out, but then I think of all the other stuff I could buy with $35 >.<

Unless someone is at a school that has access


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 22, 2009)

Still, 2% is more than most countries...do you honestly think there's an entire "canada" full of dog fuckers? :\


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Still, 2% is more than most countries...do oyu honestly think there's an entire "canada" full of dog fuckers? :\


 I think we all lost as soon as you mentioned this...


----------



## Liam (Aug 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The difference between 2% and 8% is *more than the entire American population* or most other countries, even the US and a bunch of countries combined.
> 
> An entire country worth of dogfuckers.



I don't think the article separates those simply with the desire, but will not actually partake in such things due to personal reasons, and those that actually do it.

So it's probably more like an entire country of wannabe-dogfuckers


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 22, 2009)

I hope you realise how huge 8% is. It's potentially nearly as much zoophiles as homosexuals.
Which means within a couple of years, we might try to justify the stuff, and eventually allow it...


----------



## Benjamin Foxtails (Aug 22, 2009)

FrancisBlack said:


> I hope you realise how huge 8% is. It's potentially nearly as much zoophiles as homosexuals.


I lol'd.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Still, 2% is more than most countries...do oyu honestly think there's an entire "canada" full of dog fuckers? :\



You know how silly that rethorical question is, of course?


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 22, 2009)

well now, thats just dandy. maybe there is some cult that supports it, anyway, i want to go to a fallout shelter and lock the door a whole lot more now.


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 22, 2009)

Hey, maybe you shouldn't be blaming these people, maybe you should blame all those sexy horses, neh? Always struttin' around, total tease.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 22, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> Hey, maybe you shouldn't be blaming these people, maybe you should blame all those sexy horses, neh? Always struttin' around, total tease.



please tell me this is a joke.


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 22, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> please tell me this is a joke.



If I have to tell you, you should never go to a comedy club.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 22, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> If I have to tell you, you should never go to a comedy club.



well if those numbers are right, they might be (probably not) but still, there are people who would use that as a real defense for zoophillia.


----------



## Varulven (Aug 22, 2009)

No way this is right o.o I'm gonna google it


----------



## QuixoticMutt (Aug 22, 2009)

I once read that in rural farm areas, 1 in 14 teenage boys have had sexual contact with an animal...


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 22, 2009)

Miko78 said:


> I once read that in rural farm areas, 1 in 14 teenage boys have had sexual contact with an animal...



lol, that is funny thar. yet bad at the same time, im gonna sit and wait for confusion to leave.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 22, 2009)

> I hope you realise how huge 8% is. It's potentially nearly as much zoophiles as homosexuals.
> Which means withing a couple of years, we might try to justify the stuff, and eventually allow it...



Ignoring the bad grammar, there are places where it's legal. And the number probably is correct. What I have also seen in an essay is the suggestion that, by looking at arguments against bestiality, people first decided that bestiality was wrong and are now scrambling around to find reasons to justify that choice. Judging by the history of bestiality that actually seems a lot more likely than there actually being a good reason for bestiality being banned.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Aug 22, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Ignoring the bad grammar


>:C

Places? Name some.

Also thanks for the small typo, I noticed.


----------



## CAThulu (Aug 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Still, 2% is more than most countries...do oyu honestly think there's an entire "canada" full of dog fuckers? :\



Replace 'Dog' with 'Sheep', and yeah...maybe.


----------



## Azure (Aug 22, 2009)

Doesn't make it any less gross or immoral. We should form special units to find these people, and put them to hard labor.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Ignoring the bad grammar, there are places where it's legal. And the number probably is correct. What I have also seen in an essay is the suggestion that, by looking at arguments against bestiality, people first decided that bestiality was wrong and are now scrambling around to find reasons to justify that choice. Judging by the history of bestiality that actually seems a lot more likely than there actually being a good reason for bestiality being banned.



Please don't do that.  Pleeeeease....

I really don't want this to spin off into another bestiality is right or wrong thread; I was simply commenting on the numbers.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 22, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Doesn't make it any less gross or immoral. We should form special units to find these people, and put them to hard labor.



yes, this times infinity.


----------



## Bacu (Aug 22, 2009)

Miko78 said:


> I once read that in rural farm areas, 1 in 14 teenage boys have had sexual contact with an animal...


I can attest to that.

Ãµ_o


----------



## Liam (Aug 22, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> Replace 'Dog' with 'Sheep', and yeah...maybe.


Maybe in the rural countryside farms are to parties with booze and chicks in the city for horny teenagers?


----------



## Vaelarsa (Aug 22, 2009)

I recently heard there was someone in the town I grew up in that just walked into someone's house, and started raping their dog right in front of them.

Not a rumor, either. My parents said they saw it on the news.

Fucked up shit.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 22, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Ignoring the bad grammar, there are places where it's legal. And the number probably is correct. What I have also seen in an essay is the suggestion that, by looking at arguments against bestiality, people first decided that bestiality was wrong and are now scrambling around to find reasons to justify that choice. Judging by the history of bestiality that actually seems a lot more likely than there actually being a good reason for bestiality being banned.


I though we told you to not engage in anything dealing with Beastiality due to you will FAIL


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 22, 2009)

I gave up giving a shit a long time ago, so long as it ain't bugging me i don't care anymore.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 22, 2009)

OK, if there are as many zoophiles out there as there are homosexuals, I don't think it becomes a question of numbers. It will always be a question of morality - Because that's what it boils down to. You're forcing yourself on an animal, no matter how much you think they want it (because you've trained them that this is expected/wanted behaviour and/or indulged in activities that secure them as the alpha - not you). I don't care how well you think you know your animal, Sparky isn't telling you to stick it in him. Until we have a clear and concise way to communicate freely between animals and humans, there is no way for an animal to give consent, and even then, the majority of pet-animals' diminished capacity for thought brings several other questions to bear.

But let's put it another way - I've got nothing against admiring animals, even in a sexual way. But the moment you try to involve the animal in your fantasies, that's when you cross the line.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2009)

Runefox said:


> OK, if there are as many zoophiles out there as there are homosexuals, I don't think it becomes a question of numbers. It will always be a question of morality - Because that's what it boils down to. You're forcing yourself on an animal, no matter how much you think they want it (because you've trained them that this is expected/wanted behaviour and/or indulged in activities that secure them as the alpha - not you). I don't care how well you think you know your animal, Sparky isn't telling you to stick it in him. Until we have a clear and concise way to communicate freely between animals and humans, there is no way for an animal to give consent, and even then, the majority of pet-animals' diminished capacity for thought brings several other questions to bear.
> 
> But let's put it another way - I've got nothing against admiring animals, even in a sexual way. But the moment you try to involve the animal in your fantasies, that's when you cross the line.



I guess I should have seen this coming.  The thread is now progressing down the spiral that inevitably leads to the same heated argument about morality and fucking dogs like in every other one of these threads.  It's all good; it's an open discussion but I was really hoping this wouldn't happen.

The number of people who want to do it _*should not have*_ _*any** impact *_on its ethics.  The two are completely unrelated.  What I really got from this that I thought was novel is maybe _*furry is not as fucked as we thought it was*_.

Demagogues on this forum have made it a point that there's something terribly wrong with this fandom when it comes to stuff like pedos and zoos and that something must be done about it.  I think this shows that argument is flawed and things aren't as bad as they seem; we just make a much bigger deal of them than they really are.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 22, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I guess I should have seen this coming.  The thread is now progressing down the spiral that inevitably leads to the same heated argument about morality and fucking dogs like in every other one of these threads.  It's all good; it's an open discussion but I was really hoping this wouldn't happen.
> 
> The number of people who want to do it _*should not have*_ _*any** impact *_on its ethics.  The two are completely unrelated.  What I really got from this that I thought was novel is maybe _*furry is not as fucked as we thought it was*_.
> 
> Demagogues on this forum have made it a point that there's something terribly wrong with this fandom when it comes to stuff like pedos and zoos and that something must be done about it.  I think this shows that argument is flawed and things aren't as bad as they seem; we just make a much bigger deal of them than they really are.



It's not a rotten slice of the furry pie in particular, it's a rotten slice of the HUMAN pie in general.


----------



## MaNiac (Aug 22, 2009)

Why do people want to have sex with Animals I don't know.

There's plenty of girls and guys out there who would want you


----------



## Runefox (Aug 22, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I guess I should have seen this coming.



Honestly now, did you really expect anything but a negative reaction to a post having anything to do with zoophilia? I thought what I said was rather tactful. What did you expect to happen when you post information about a certain percentage of the population being interested in zoophilia right at the same time raging zoophile-vs-antizoophile debates were marching on?

I believe it was in another post that I mentioned pretty much exactly what you just said. I was a little surprised at your reaction to my post at first, but it seems like there are so many of these topics now that I'm not able to properly keep track.

Basically, furry doesn't really exist as a counterpart to zoophilia, but the supposed similarities keep the magnetic attraction going. The major reasoning behind the purging of things like that aside from the obvious legal issues and stigma that may arise from associating with and accepting those types would be the further perpetuation in the public eye that furries are indeed completely retarded degenerates. Well, actually, that's already how they feel about furries, but adding in zoophilia and stuff just adds icing to the cake - Particularly, accepting that sort of activity basically sends a very clear message that furry is a safe haven and that furries in general support such activities, whether or not that's actually true. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's a perception that _only_ furries have these problems, but it has everything to do with the perception that furries _accept_ these things.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 22, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Ignoring the bad grammar, there are places where it's legal. And the number probably is correct. What I have also seen in an essay is the suggestion that, by looking at arguments against bestiality, people first decided that bestiality was wrong and are now scrambling around to find reasons to justify that choice. Judging by the history of bestiality that actually seems a lot more likely than there actually being a good reason for bestiality being banned.


No.  Stop now.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 22, 2009)

Tycho said:


> It's not a rotten slice of the furry pie in particular, it's a rotten slice of the HUMAN pie in general.


  And, occasionally, the Seal / Dolphin pie.

If OP statistics are correct, that's between 130mil and 530mil zoophiles.  However, I must ask how these statistics were reached.  2-8% is also a pretty broad spectrum, with a _400 million people difference_ between high and low end.  To put this into comparison:  This is comparable to mixing up Wisconsin with New York.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 22, 2009)

> Ignoring the bad grammar, there are places where it's legal. And the number probably is correct. What I have also seen in an essay is the suggestion that, by looking at arguments against bestiality, people first decided that bestiality was wrong and are now scrambling around to find reasons to justify that choice. Judging by the history of bestiality that actually seems a lot more likely than there actually being a good reason for bestiality being banned.


I missed this one.

Just because something is legal (or, typically, not explicitly illegal), does not mean that it is inherently right or morally acceptable. Beating and mutilating your wife/spouse is perfectly legal in some places; In fact, they are considered property in many of those. Abuse is abuse, be it sexual, psychological, or physical, and be it against a human or non-human. When someone or something is under your care, abuse of power is never right.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 22, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I missed this one.
> 
> Just because something is legal (or, typically, not explicitly illegal), does not mean that it is inherently right or morally acceptable. Beating and mutilating your wife/spouse is perfectly legal in some places; In fact, they are considered property in many of those. Abuse is abuse, be it sexual, psychological, or physical, and be it against a human or non-human. When someone or something is under your care, abuse of power is never right.


And this is where Rakuen tries to deflect away from the topic by mentioning how we mistreat and abuse our power over other animals in other ways.  He will then avoid the question "Even if we abuse them, why should we abuse them worse by fucking them?" and try to switch to saying that it causes no harm whatsoever and, in fact, doesn't even have the potential to harm.  Let's not go down that road, shall we?


----------



## Tycho (Aug 22, 2009)

Attaman said:


> And, occasionally, the Seal / Dolphin pie.



lol.  Funny.

I knew that dolphins were notorious pervs and rapists even, but seals? Funny.  Strange, kind of alarming, but funny.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Honestly now, did you really expect anything but a negative reaction to a post having anything to do with zoophilia? I thought what I said was rather tactful. What did you expect to happen when you post information about a certain percentage of the population being interested in zoophilia right at the same time raging zoophile-vs-antizoophile debates were marching on?



Yeah, I expect too much from people.  It _should be_ possible to have an intelligent discussion about a heated topic that is not fueled by emotion.  It's a challenge here, though.



> I believe it was in another post that I mentioned pretty much exactly what you just said. I was a little surprised at your reaction to my post at first, but it seems like there are so many of these topics now that I'm not able to properly keep track.


If you quoted the same statistics (or something similar) I must have missed it.  I apologize for that.  I was certainly shocked when I saw how many it was.



> Basically, furry doesn't really exist as a counterpart to zoophilia, but the supposed similarities keep the magnetic attraction going. The major reasoning behind the purging of things like that aside from the obvious legal issues and stigma that may arise from associating with and accepting those types would be the further perpetuation in the public eye that furries are indeed completely retarded degenerates.


I don't think the public cares much at all...  The problem I _do_ see is a broad notion that one must _accept anything and everything_ in order _not_ to be a narrow-minded bigot in this scene, but that is very far from the truth.  If people are into some weird shit and they tell everyone about it they can't always expect a positive reaction.  Talking about "purging" things is a pretty offensive stance however, especially if no real problem even exists.  I don't think anything needs "purging" as you put it; I just think people need to lighten up a bit on both sides of the fence.  The day someone runs into a convention waving a razor-sharp hunting knife trying to stab all the zoos is the day we really will end up in the news and people actually _will_ care.  (edit: just so you know I'm being facetious here but you get the point)



> Well, actually, that's already how they feel about furries, but adding in zoophilia and stuff just adds icing to the cake - Particularly, accepting that sort of activity basically sends a very clear message that furry is a safe haven and that furries in general support such activities, whether or not that's actually true. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's a perception that _only_ furries have these problems, but it has everything to do with the perception that furries _accept_ these things.


Again, this is mostly in your head.  Most people don't know much at all about the furry scene and guess what?  They don't care, either.  Stop getting so worked up over an image.  People will judge you by how you act and who you are.  If you talk about furries and get all defensive about this stuff they will think it's weird.  Guess what though...  If you said you're a furry and they asked about it and you told them it's art, like with animals and stuff I guarantee the response would be "oh, okay."

The only reason you people get so upset over the whole image of the furry scene is you're still butthurt over the stuff that was on TV, and nobody even cares about it anymore.  Get over it.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 22, 2009)

Tycho said:


> lol.  Funny.
> 
> I knew that dolphins were notorious pervs and rapists even, but seals? Funny.  Strange, kind of alarming, but funny.



Better yet when you realize the Seals are beasties.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Aug 22, 2009)

Another fetish for the masses, honestly if we can consider the animal to have the same rights as human in this context. Then legally or not, unless the animal wants it (Lawl like you can tell). Then your just violating the animals nonexistent rights.

Then again every other person is into rape anyway, so I don't think that applies to them.

On the flip side, an seal doing me sounds kinky.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 22, 2009)

> Talking about "purging" things is a pretty offensive stance however, especially if no real problem even exists.


I hate to be forceful, but can you take a step back and look at the bigger picture? It's not about "acceptance" or "support" or "having an open mind" or anything like that, and it certainly isn't about the widespread nature of it, either. It would be fine if, for example, you loved getting covered in peanut butter for sexual gratification. That's your business. It's fine if you like doing the whole scat thing (please don't talk about/do it in front of me, though). Hell, it's fine if your life-long dream is to try a monroe transfer.

But the minute you take consent out of the picture is the minute you cross the line from fetish to sexual assault. And sexual assault is something that should *not*, under any circumstances, be supported or celebrated. If it's not that big a deal to the outside world, then fine - It's a big deal to me and as it seems to stand, also to most of the people who post in this forum and run the site attached to it.

Like I said, I don't care what fantasies people have - You can fantasize all you want about anything, really. But the moment your fantasies turn to action and involve those who cannot give consent or have not given you consent, that's when you separate from fetish into the territory of _absolute_ immorality. And this is coming from an atheist.

It doesn't matter if it's not just furry that this is involved with, or that it's legal in some countries; The fact that furry has been seen by these people as a safe haven for this sort of activity is what bothers me the most about all this, and I think the same goes for everyone else, too. It doesn't have to be logical - The mere act of bestiality isn't logical to begin with - But the fewer the people who are willing to cross that line can claim to hide behind the fandom's support, or even FA's support, the better. I don't want to be associated with that sort of thing in any way.


----------



## Wildside (Aug 22, 2009)

Less 8% of humanity admits to being dogfuckers on TV then I don't believe this to be valid. |:


----------



## Traumerei (Aug 22, 2009)

The arguments you guys are coming up with against bestiality sound just like what the social conservatives say against homosexuality.

Maybe it shouldn't be allowed because animals can't consent, and no other reason? I don't care about what people do in bed, but this is animal abuse.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 22, 2009)

> Maybe it shouldn't be allowed because animals can't consent, and no other reason?


This is what I've been saying, though I'm also trying to simultaneously explain why there seems to be a witch hunt against zoophiles right now. I guess it's kind of running together.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 22, 2009)

Traumerei said:


> The arguments you guys are coming up with against bestiality sound just like what the social conservatives say against homosexuality.
> 
> Maybe it shouldn't be allowed because animals can't consent, and no other reason? I don't care about what people do in bed, but this is animal abuse.





Runefox said:


> This is what I've been saying, though I'm also trying to simultaneously explain why there seems to be a witch hunt against zoophiles right now. I guess it's kind of running together.



I see the arguement from both sides. The reason I dislike zoophillia/beastiality is not because the law says it is wrong, but because i PERSONALY feel it is a wrong act to do on an animal. That is my personal view. My view is not inspired by any law at all.

I do wish some of us hadn't turned this thread into, what I think is getting close to a bitchfest about beastiality again.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 22, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Better yet when you realize the Seals are beasties.



Because for seals, a penguin is fine too.

I wonder what this means for the sick fucks who molest dolphins.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

FrancisBlack said:


> >:C
> 
> Places? Name some.



It's legal in my state of West Virginia, as long as the animal is domestic and over 50 lbs... There are a few other states in where are Bestiality is legal, I think another was Arizona but I'm not totally sure.

As for the law vs morality, the law applies differently in different regions and if it's legal I believe that it's up to the individual to determine whether or not it's moral to _their_ life style. Personally I feel that judging someone based upon sexual attraction to animals is just as bad as judging someone with a homosexual attraction.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 22, 2009)

edit: meh.  Not spoiling for a fight THAT bad.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Somehow, animal-fucking being legal in WV doesn't surprise me.



Cos it's a "hillbilly" stereotype that just happens to be true?

Bestiality is legal, but incest isn't.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Cos it's a "hillbilly" stereotype that just happens to be true?
> 
> Bestiality is legal, but incest isn't.



Fuck, you're fast. Made the edit pointless.

And yes, because it's a hillbilly thing.

Edit: you're not fast, I'm just stuck in 2nd gear tonight.  Fuck.


----------



## Bacu (Aug 22, 2009)

What exactly is the criteria for being considered a zoophile to fit in this 2%-8%, anyway?


----------



## Vaelarsa (Aug 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> It's legal in my state of West Virginia, as long as the animal is domestic and over 50 lbs...


People can get away with that here?

Fucking
*ew*.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

I thought so, and I really can't blame you. I sit back and observe sometimes and its obvious that we bring it on ourselves sometimes. I mean, seriously, when in high school the biggest _fashion_ statement was the rebel flag... You are in a redneck/hillbilly town...

But in high school there was this teen who claimed he fucked a horse, but I believe it was a fairy tale because he was one of those kids who would do or say anything to get a reaction.

If I recall correctly I think twice the subject of bestiality came up in high school from articles in the newspaper of some guy who got caught fucking a sheep or some other farm animal, he got charged with public indecency and I think he also got some other charge for damage to personal property cos he didn't own the animal himself.



Vaelarsa said:


> People can get away with that here?
> 
> Fucking
> *ew*.



Could be worse...


----------



## Aurali (Aug 22, 2009)

Vaelarsa said:


> People can get away with that here?
> 
> Fucking
> *ew*.



I dunno Vaelarsa... Usually the loophole is "Animal abuse." That's how they get you in Arizona anyway.


----------



## RoqsWolf (Aug 22, 2009)

Ahh I remember hearing a  statistic like this a few months back,but it was like a higher percent i think. It's kind of ironic because wouldn't that statistic mean that theres a higher of percent of zoophiles in regular society then the fur fandom? I still think that bestiality is still inmoral and wrong thuogh, but thats a great statistic to tell the trolls :V


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 22, 2009)

Dude, you have a sexual attraction to *animals*. It really doesn't even have anything to do with moral objection to the fact you feel what you feel. It has everything to do with the likelihood that you won't be able to restrict it to your imagination indefinitely. Just by existing, you pose a threat to the creatures we have an obligation as stewards of the earth to protect.

*cue the soft "thump-_thump_, thump-_thump_" of tribal drums, bone flutes and bagpipes*

These are simply the laws of nature. This goes back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, who also had an innate understanding that it was part of their role in nature to respect the very creatures they hunted out of necessity. That means not traumatizing them and robbing them of their freedom while they're alive. Our hate for you is merely an emotional response necessary to fuel the fervor with which we approach our task of protecting the sanctity of our relationship with the other creatures of this one, sacred earth.

The great spirit decreed this. Joe Crow and Billy Two-Willies passed this knowledge down to me in the sweat lodge over a joint in exchange for that awesome beer I brought them from the great lands of Canada.


----------



## Catte (Aug 22, 2009)

I personally don't have any sort of bias on this subject, and I really think that it's dependent on whether or not it would be considered abusive to the animal, and judgments of that based on your own opinions of it make you look like a moron, really.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Dude, you have a sexual attraction to *animals*. It really doesn't even have...
> ...great spirits decreed this. Joe Crow and Billy Two-Willies passed this knowledge down to me in the sweat lodge over a joint in exchange for that awesome beer I brought them from the great lands of Canada.


This post made me sigh. And you should be ashamed.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 22, 2009)

RoqsWolf said:


> Ahh I remember hearing a  statistic like this a few months back,but it was like a higher percent i think.


  And where did you hear it?  I ask because this: 


> I still think that bestiality is still inmoral and wrong thuogh, but thats a great statistic to tell the trolls :V


 Seems like a very good reason for Furries to spout numbers.

"8% of the Fandom is into Zoophilia."
"13% of the world is into Zoophilia now wut Furries 5% less Zoophilia troll GTFO LOL PWN JEW"

And again, I'm suspect to this percentage.  What population did they use as a base for this?  How many people did they check in the first place?  How do they get a big enough percentage difference comparable to saying "It's somewhere in population between the United States and China"?


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Dude, you have a sexual attraction to *animals*. It really doesn't even have anything to do with moral objection to the fact you feel what you feel. It has everything to do with the likelihood that you won't be able to restrict it to your imagination indefinitely. Just by existing, you pose a threat to the creatures we have an obligation as stewards of the earth to protect.
> 
> *cue the soft "thump-_thump_, thump-_thump_" of tribal drums, bone flutes and bagpipes*
> 
> ...



A stud would get sexually aggressive with you if you happened to smell like a female horse in heat. The same applies to dogs, cats and other mammals. "The laws of nature" argument is a bit hypocritical with all the unnatural acts we do as a human race.

In all honesty if your going to use the "threat" argument, furries also pose a threat to animals being that anthropomorphic characters have animal features and by definition an _animal with human_ attributes. Being that even non-biped creatures and cartoons can be considered anthropomorphic, like Balto. So, if you find yourself attracted to anthropomorphic characters in a sexual manner, which in most cases we are, you would pose a threat by being in existence because of the chance that you might end up focusing more on the animal aspect and find yourself sneaking around a barn somewhere.

It is all about morality, and as they say morality applies to people in various forms and various ways. Being that your morality is negative morality in someone elses eyes. A common moral standard in western society is that women are individuals and equals to their male counterpart, however in differen't cultures such as Japanese culture and Middle Eastern culture women are viewed as a lesser being and even as property.

You form your opinion around your morality, the information that you know, your experiences, your own thoughts and surroundings formed your "hate" for "zoophiles".

As where person B can think otherwise... That bestiality and zoophilia (yes, there is a difference) are not only morally inobjectional but even a positive moral action. Example, zoophiles are people who have a strong emotional (love) connection with their pet/animal in where they whole heartedly believe they are the animal's soul mate, and where sex with said animal is an expression of love alot of us humans normally do.

Further more, _most_ of the "hate" or moral negativity based around bestiality and zoophilia is founded soley on harm, or alteast people _claim_ that. There is no valid proof that any physical or emotional harm happens to the animal from a human fucking them, and to point out that if one claims that emotional harm is inflicted to animals would conflict with the argument that animals do not understand whats happening to them.

No matter how you slice it, it's _your_ moral opinion, and if bestiality is not illegal in certain areas or states then by all means other humans are not obliged to abide by your personal or social standards. Hypothetically you as an individual or even as a social gathering have absolutely no right to tell people in another country/state in where bestiality is legal and/or for arguments sake morally positive, that it is wrong.

My moral opinion, this "hate" is wasted energy...


----------



## Attaman (Aug 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> "The laws of nature" argument is a bit hypocritical with all the unnatural acts we do as a human race.


 Laws of nature also doesn't work considering I posted two species just a page back that will try fucking another species (Seals and Dolphins).

However, for the "unnatural" things we do: name three things humanity does that are unnatural.  War, pollution, murder, genocide, infantcide, ecosystem overturning, tool using, rape, bias, and racism all do not count as they're all mimicked in at least one other species in nature (Chimps, zebra mussels, orcas, lions, squirrels, snakeheads, otters, dolphins, birds against owls, and monkey tribal warfare respectively for all them).

Personally, the only three I can think of are curing diseases, going into space, and harnessing atomic energy.  None of which I particularly hold against humanity.



> It is all about morality, and as they say morality applies to people in various forms and various ways.


  By the same logic, pedophilia is all morality.  



> As where person B can think otherwise... That bestiality and zoophilia (yes, there is a difference) are not only morally inobjectional but even a positive moral action. Example, zoophiles are people who have a strong emotional (love) connection with their pet/animal in where they whole heartedly believe they are the animal's soul mate, and where sex with said animal is an expression of love alot of us humans normally do.


  Please tell me your response is "But that's all a load of bollocks.  "



> There is no valid proof that any physical or emotional harm happens to the animal from a human fucking them, and to point out that if one claims that emotional harm is inflicted to animals would conflict with the argument that animals do not understand whats happening to them.


  Must I bring up Pedophilia once more, or take the step further and mention toddlercon?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 22, 2009)

people with no lives said:
			
		

> TL;DR stuff



Truth be told, it's not as deep-rooted an issue with me as say, my opposition to pedophiles, white supremacists or even libertarians. It's one of those things that I believe will work itself out in the end with you guys being bred out of the gene pool since you don't reproduce _anyway_. I care way, way more about human on human sin than that between humans and animals.

I only even bothered because someone coaxed me into it - long story short, an IRC mod who gives a bigger shit about keeping her status as a mod than expressing her anger at people like you, but I just told her she can to her own fucking bidding from now on.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Laws of nature also doesn't work considering I posted two species just a page back that will try fucking another species (Seals and Dolphins).
> 
> However, for the "unnatural" things we do: name three things humanity does that are unnatural.  War, pollution, murder, genocide, infantcide, ecosystem overturning, tool using, rape, bias, and racism all do not count as they're all mimicked in at least one other species in nature (Chimps, zebra mussels, orcas, lions, squirrels, snakeheads, otters, dolphins, birds against owls, and monkey tribal warfare respectively for all them).
> 
> Personally, the only three I can think of are curing diseases, going into space, and harnessing atomic energy.  None of which I particularly hold against humanity.



Pollution from animals are generally from a natural process such as bodily functions. I'd say war amongst animals isn't as serious as making a bomb that can kill nearly every living thing on the planet... And usually animals fight for survival, nesting, and mating, never for politics or to advance some "moral" agenda.



> By the same logic, pedophilia is all morality.


You can argue that, but there has been proof that sex at a young age _can_ drastically alter a child's attitude and lifestyle, possibly bringing them emotional harm.



Wolf-Bone said:


> Truth be told, it's not as deep-rooted an issue with me as say, my opposition to pedophiles, white supremacists or even libertarians. It's one of those things that I believe will work itself out in the end with you guys being bred out of the gene pool since you don't reproduce _anyway_. I care way, way more about human on human sin than that between humans and animals.
> 
> I only even bothered because someone coaxed me into it - long story short, an IRC mod who gives a bigger shit about keeping her status as a mod than expressing her anger at people like you, but I just told her she can to her own fucking bidding from now on.



I wouldn't say that people who are into bestiality don't reproduce, and don't have lives, that sounds more like a pure hate statement rather than a rational thought. And you'd be surprised at how many people in this thread alone are closet zoophiles, I'd bet atleast two...

And one last thing 





> people like you


 jumping to conclusions?


----------



## Attaman (Aug 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Pollution from animals are generally from a natural process such as bodily functions.


  So they still pollute and can kill entire ecosystems, but are excused from it because it comes from their body instead of tools.  I got you.



> I'd say war amongst animals isn't as serious as making a bomb that can kill nearly every living thing on the planet...


  First:  It can kill anything, provided it detonates close enough.
Second:  Rats carrying fleas infected with the black death, easily capable of killing over 75-100 million people.  Or more possibly more than World Wars One and Two.  In less than half the time.  Huh, for us being capable of killing so many critters at once, nature still has us beat in total casualties _and_ amount of time it took.

"But it was not the rat / fleas goals!"  And the purpose of nuking another city is to kill the local wildlife?



> And usually animals fight for survival, nesting, and mating, never for politics or to advance some "moral" agenda.


 Because all these instances were totally vital to survival. And those that are not were completely goaded into it. Surely what I link now is a few outliers. The animal kingdom is not anywhere near as brutal as humanity. And even if not, they still had a good reason. Because there aren't murderers in the animal community. None at all.

EDIT:  A derailment, but isn't it at least a breath of fresh air from what we were about to delve into?


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

Attaman said:


> So they still pollute and can kill entire ecosystems, but are excused from it because it comes from their body instead of tools.  I got you.



yeah...



> First:  It can kill anything, provided it detonates close enough.
> Second:  Rats carrying fleas infected with the black death, easily capable of killing over 75-100 million people.  Or more possibly more than World Wars One and Two.  In less than half the time.  Huh, for us being capable of killing so many critters at once, nature still has us beat in total casualties _and_ amount of time it took.



Nature had a head start, give us some time we'll eventually develop something to kill ourselves with that would be worse than any natural disaster. But if you wanna talk about nature, conspiracy theorists believe that governments are now using the weather as a weapon... I don't believe it, but just saying. :/



> "But it was not the rat / fleas goals!"  And the purpose of nuking another city is to kill the local wildlife?


The purpose of a nuke can be summed up in this one liner

"An equal opportunity life ender"

Don't think a dog or a wolf could make a nuke


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 22, 2009)

Humans fit with nature you know, I'm tired and not thinking straight right now but from what I can make out from my blurry vision, it sounds like some posts are drawing a line between nature and humans. We are every bit as natural as the rest of the animal kingdom, the difference is, its in our nature to create and advance, as for animals, its in their nature to do the same thing forever and ever.

Lets face it. Humans don't compete physically with the animal kingdom. We aren't taking down prey and eating em up. We have to improvise, use tools and our god given intelligence to outsmart our prey and survive.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> Humans fit with nature you know, I'm tired and not thinking straight right now but from what I can make out from my blurry vision, it sounds like some posts are drawing a line between nature and humans. We are every bit as natural as the rest of the animal kingdom, the difference is, its in our nature to create and advance, as for animals, its in their nature to do the same thing forever and ever.
> 
> Lets face it. Humans don't compete physically with the animal kingdom. We aren't taking down prey and eating em up. We have to improvise, use tools and our god given intelligence to outsmart our prey and survive.



Actually we do take down prey and eat them up, we do it on a daily basis. We just have a more advanced way of doing it.


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Actually we do take down prey and eat them up, we do it on a daily basis. We just have a more advanced way of doing it.



Which is what the very next sentence explained. We use tools because we are physically weak compared to say...a lion, or a bear...or anything else thats bigger than a medium sized dog.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> Which is what the very next sentence explained. We use tools because we are physically weak compared to say...a lion, or a bear...or anything else thats bigger than a medium sized dog.



Yeah, but how many of these tools are actually _necessary_ for us to survive?


----------



## Attaman (Aug 22, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> Which is what the very next sentence explained. We use tools because we are physically weak compared to say...a lion, or a bear...or anything else thats bigger than a medium sized dog.


 On the plus side, we can beat them with very simple tools.
Evidence one.
Evidence two. (It should be noted that the title in this one is misleading:  It was mostly fancy spear-work that saved the man)

Also, we apparently are good enough to take down a buck with our bare hands.

EDIT:  I'd say logs, spears, and hands are all pretty good tools for keeping us alive.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 22, 2009)

Most of the tools we have today are for luxury, to make life a little bit easier, and some of them are for pure entertainment.

Anyway, I've made my statements and I'm gonna leave the thread before harboring any grudges.


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Yeah, but how many of these tools are actually _necessary_ for us to survive?



If your talking about computers or technology, none. If your talking about sharpened rocks and sticks, absolutely. Look, humans were created this way because our strongest weapon is our brain. We think to survive, we don't just exist and survive. We use our intelligence to create situations suitable for our survival as well as manipulate the composition of the earth to advance with science.

Basically, if we didn't use our most distinguishing ability, we would die off. We don't just roam around on instinct doing the exact same thing as any other of the same species, till the end of time. This is why I don't look at humans as "just another animal" or "nothing special." We are the only living thing to advance, adapt and act in a way that supports a feeling rather than a need.

Fuzz has to sleep now, everything is kind of blurry and I can't focus, so I'mma go has a sleep nao kthx. zzzz


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 22, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Most of the tools we have today are for luxury, to make life a little bit easier, and some of them are for pure entertainment.



Really? 'Cause I'm looking at a lot of tools right now and they're not making anybody's life easier - but they _can_ be pretty entertaining when you put them on the internet, I'll give you that.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 23, 2009)

Very clever way to insult someone...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 23, 2009)

This just in, some human beings are fucked up mentally, animals still dumb.  More at 11...


----------



## Equium (Aug 23, 2009)

FrancisBlack said:


> >:C
> 
> Places? Name some.



According to Glorious Wiki, active involvement in Zoophilia is legal in:

Belgium
Cambodia
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Hungary*
Mexico
Netherlands**
Norway
Sweden
Switzerland
Some US States. (Alaska and Florida are currently in the progress of legalising it)

*Providing no harm is done to the animal
**In the process of illegalisation

One of the most remarkable things about legalisation is in such places as Switzerland, where bestiality was legalised at THE SAME TIME as homosexuality. That's how highly homosexuality was thought of.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 23, 2009)

It's still socially wrong in those places, taboo; people don't do it there more than anywhere else, it's the same mentally unstable percentile.


----------



## Equium (Aug 23, 2009)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting it. I'm glad it's illegal in the UK and should be in more places. It just does go on. >.<


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 23, 2009)

> What exactly is the criteria for being considered a zoophile to fit in this 2%-8%, anyway?



The figures are probably from sexuality studies where they ask if you've had sexual contact with an animal. So it's 2-8% of people have had sexual contact with an animal. Most of them aren't zoophiles though.



> Must I bring up Pedophilia once more, or take the step further and mention toddlercon?



Animals in sex are usually mature, unlike children. Also mental damage to children might be because of social pressures. Adult animals will never have a stigma attached to them and never suddenly associate the activity as a negative experience.



> It's one of those things that I believe will work itself out in the end with you guys being bred out of the gene pool since you don't reproduce _anyway_.



Don't count on it. Bestiality in humans is suspected to have started up to 40 000 years ago.



> And this is where Rakuen tries to deflect away from the topic by mentioning how we mistreat and abuse our power over other animals in other ways. He will then avoid the question "Even if we abuse them, why should we abuse them worse by fucking them?" and try to switch to saying that it causes no harm whatsoever and, in fact, doesn't even have the potential to harm. Let's not go down that road, shall we?



Actually I say animals are treated inconsistently. If you want to consider consent in animal sex then why don't you consider it in other features of their lives?
And as for the harm thing, there isn't any good evidence to suggest that it is harmful. Reality is reality, no matter what you want it to be.


----------



## Hir (Aug 23, 2009)

That is a hell of a lot of Zoophiles, thats a maximum of nearly 10% of the population.

But 2 to 8 percent of billions is a hell of a jump, it really can't be that accurate if they are so vague about the percentage.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Aug 23, 2009)

Let me guess, he was born that way, huh?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 23, 2009)

> That is a hell of a lot of Zoophiles, thats a maximum of nearly 10% of the population.
> 
> But 2 to 8 percent of billions is a hell of a jump, it really can't be that accurate if they are so vague about the percentage.



Not really of zoophiles. Of people who have sexual contact with animals. There are lots of reasons people do it; they are zoophiles, they need a sexual outlet and there aren't humans around, cultural pressure against premarital sex, psychologically disturbed people, people looking for something new in the bedroom and people who are forced into by someone else.

Also they are vague because different studies get different results. The first study giving the prevalence of bestiality was, I think, 4% for females and 8% for males. Some later studies got about half these values. Also it depends where you sample. It's thought that rural people have higher levels of bestiality and most studies have been done in America, which is one of the most hostile societies to bestiality in the world.


----------



## Hir (Aug 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Not really of zoophiles. Of people who have sexual contact with animals. There are lots of reasons people do it; they are zoophiles, they need a sexual outlet and there aren't humans around, cultural pressure against premarital sex, psychologically disturbed people, people looking for something new in the bedroom and people who are forced into by someone else.
> 
> Also they are vague because different studies get different results. The first study giving the prevalence of bestiality was, I think, 4% for females and 8% for males. Some later studies got about half these values. Also it depends where you sample. It's thought that rural people have higher levels of bestiality and most studies have been done in America, which is one of the most hostile societies to bestiality in the world.


That makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 23, 2009)

To the idiot who said "Florida is trying to legalize it" they are trying to make it Illegal...thank you, and florida can get you with animal cruelty like other states

EDIT: Bad mood today so I cleaned it up


----------



## Thatch (Aug 23, 2009)

DarkNoctus said:


> But 2 to 8 percent of billions is a hell of a jump, it really can't be that accurate if they are so vague about the percentage.



Try to get a rural farmer to admit sexing up his cow or a hilbilly to say that he did his sheep :V
But we can assume they did at least once anyway XD


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 23, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Very clever way to insult someone...



really though


----------



## Hir (Aug 23, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Try to get a rural farmer to admit sexing up his cow or a hilbilly to say that he did his sheep :V


Try to make him do the alphabet too. :V


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> There are lots of reasons people do it; they are zoophiles, they need a sexual outlet... *and people who are forced into by someone else*.



That sounds kinda hot...  I could just picture someone getting tied up to a bed thinking they are going to get dommed by their partner, who then goes outside for a sec and brings a dog in the room and the person on the bed is like "Oh, FUCK"


----------



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> That sounds kinda hot...  I could just picture someone getting tied up to a bed thinking they are going to get dommed by their partner, who then goes outside for a sec and brings a dog in the room and the person on the bed is like "Oh, FUCK"



Sorry, but this really explains everything, doesn't it?


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Sorry, but this really explains everything, doesn't it?



About what?  I'm creepy?

I could have told you that a long time ago.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox is a bit hostile on this subject, huh. 

Rawr rawr hiss etc.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> About what?  I'm creepy?
> 
> I could have told you that a long time ago.



Maybe he just got what your avatar means or something.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> Runefox is a bit hostile on this subject, huh.
> 
> Rawr rawr hiss etc.



I'm pretty entirely against anything that removes consent from physical sexual activity; That's all I'm saying. I'm pretty open-minded aside from that.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I'm pretty entirely against anything that removes consent from physical sexual activity; That's all I'm saying. I'm pretty open-minded aside from that.


And it's apparent that you've made that completely obvious to us. 

Makes me curious as to what else you're against.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I'm pretty entirely against anything that removes consent from physical sexual activity; That's all I'm saying. I'm pretty open-minded aside from that.



But my precious date-rape pills, I won't get any without them... D:


----------



## Iakesen (Aug 23, 2009)

A friend of mine predicted that in a few decades zoophilia will become fully legal and at the same acceptance status homosexuality is at today.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 23, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Actually I say animals are treated inconsistently. If you want to consider consent in animal sex then why don't you consider it in other features of their lives?
> And as for the harm thing, there isn't any good evidence to suggest that it is harmful. Reality is reality, no matter what you want it to be.


This is exactly what I said.  Your defense is that we mistreat them in other ways.  That has nothing to do with mistreating them by fucking them, it's just opposed to owning animals in general. 

And as for the harm thing, there isn't any good evidence to suggest that it is not harmful.  Reality is reality, no matter what you want it to be.  We simply don't know for sure what effects it has, but we do know that there IS potential for harm to be done.  Why take the risk?


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> And it's apparent that you've made that completely obvious to us.
> 
> Makes me curious as to what else you're against.


Troll detected. (Just kidding)


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 23, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> This is exactly what I said.  Your defense is that we mistreat them in other ways.  That has nothing to do with mistreating them by fucking them, it's just opposed to owning animals in general.
> 
> And as for the harm thing, there isn't any good evidence to suggest that it is not harmful.  Reality is reality, no matter what you want it to be.  We simply don't know for sure what effects it has, but we do know that there IS potential for harm to be done.  Why take the risk?



Exactly, we don't place a chemical into the air/water/food, a chemical that we have no idea what effects it will have to anything living or non-living. We don't make things legal because it might not be bad; we make things illegal if it might be very, very bad.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 23, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> We simply don't know for sure what effects it has, but we do know that there IS potential for harm to be done.  Why take the risk?



We know. It teaches them that trying to have sex with humans is a good thing. And them being animals, they don't know or care with who or when they can, they'll just do it when they feel like it. That's quite enough harm done.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Troll detected. (Just kidding)



Oh shit, I've been spotted! Quick, to the fallout shelter. (shuffle shuffle shuffle)


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> Oh shit, I've been spotted! Quick, to the fallout shelter. (shuffle shuffle shuffle)



HEY HEY HEY, IM THE NUCLEAR PARANOID ONE HERE. ONLY I CAN ORDER FLEEING TO THE SHELTERS.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> HEY HEY HEY, IM THE NUCLEAR PARANOID ONE HERE. ONLY I CAN ORDER FLEEING TO THE SHELTERS.


I don't see your name on it. :v


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> I don't see your name on it. :v



ask Jashwa, ive been paranoid of nukes for a very long time.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> ask Jashwa, ive been paranoid of nukes for a very long time.


I have two words for you, "Conspiracy Theory." :v :v


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> I have two words for you, "Conspiracy Theory." :v :v



so. im still quite paranoid, i have designs for a Fallout Shelter to build in my backyard when i get a house. and Jashwa, what happened? thanks.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> so. im still quite paranoid, i have designs for a Fallout Shelter to build in my backyard when i get a house. and Jashwa, what happened? thanks.


That's a bit obsessive, wouldn't you think? I'm merely in here to avoid being banblasted for being a "Troll (just kidding)" as Newf suggests. :3

..I don't even know what that means.



Slight Edit: Anyway, um, someone earlier stated that there was a difference between the term "zoophilia" and "bestiality."
For the sake of the thread, will someone please clarify this for me?


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> That's a bit obsessive, wouldn't you think? I'm merely in here to avoid being banblasted for being a "Troll (just kidding)" as Newf suggests. :3
> 
> ..I don't even know what that means.



troll or my obbsesion?


----------



## Thatch (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> Slight Edit: Anyway, um, someone earlier stated that there was a difference between the term "zoophilia" and "bestiality."
> For the sake of the thread, will someone please clarify this for me?



Zoophilia - literary love of animals.
Bestiality - intercourse with an animal.

One is a thought, the other a deed.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Zoophilia - literary love of animals.
> Bestiality - intercourse with an animal.
> 
> One is a thought, the other a deed.



a very bad deed, a wtf deed.


----------



## jagdwolf (Aug 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> a very bad deed, a wtf deed.


 


Um, you ever heard the saying....

Scotland, where men are men and the sheep are afraid.


Ok  just had to say that, feel free to flame me for it.  but its funny...unless your the sheep.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 23, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Scotland, where men are men and the sheep are afraid.
> 
> 
> Ok  just had to say that, feel free to flame me for it.  but its funny...unless your the sheep.



Who cares, sheep are not dogs :V

Lol, a farmer doing it with his farm animals doesn't seem quite as bad as getting a pet to do it.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Um, you ever heard the saying....
> 
> Scotland, where men are men and the sheep are afraid.
> 
> ...



please stop, ive already been scared for life.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> please stop, ive already been scared for life.


Aaaaaahhhh quick to the fallout shelters!


----------



## blackfuredfox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> Aaaaaahhhh quick to the fallout shelters!



stop that, i already gave the order a while ago.


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

blackfuredfox said:


> stop that, i already gave the order a while ago.


:>


----------



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> Makes me curious as to what else you're against.



Ask away. I think it's pretty justified to be against rape and abuse, don't you? I don't think that makes me a bigot, or closed-minded. I'm fairly sure I can justify just about anything that I'm against to at least some degree of acceptability by any normal person.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Ask away. I think it's pretty justified to be against rape and abuse, don't you? I don't think that makes me a bigot, or closed-minded. I'm fairly sure I can justify just about anything that I'm against to at least some degree of acceptability by any normal person.



But I like rape and abuse


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 23, 2009)

Ricky said:


> But I like rape and abuse


In Rune's defense, he DID say normal person.


----------



## Ragnarok-Cookies (Aug 23, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> In Rune's defense, he DID say normal person.


But what if people normally like rape and abuse?


----------



## Catte (Aug 23, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Ask away. I think it's pretty justified to be against rape and abuse, don't you? I don't think that makes me a bigot, or closed-minded. I'm fairly sure I can justify just about anything that I'm against to at least some degree of acceptability by any normal person.



I'm sensing a bit of elitism in you.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 23, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> In Rune's defense, he DID say normal person.



Haha good point.  Although I believe almost everyone likes the idea of rape to some degree in either fantasy or reality.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 23, 2009)

Drakea said:


> I'm sensing a bit of elitism in you.



I'm not trying to be; I'm actually being sincere. However, comments like asking what else I'm against seem to insinuate that I'm just randomly against certain things for the sake of doing it, and am a massive hypocrite, when in reality this is pretty concrete in my mind.

EDIT:





> Although I believe almost everyone likes the idea of rape to some degree in either fantasy or reality.


Well, like I said, fantasy is one thing, and if it's you who's getting raped, then it's really a form of consent if you want it to happen, isn't it? But if you're forcing it on someone who _doesn't_ want it to happen, then that crosses the line.


----------



## Catte (Aug 24, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I'm not trying to be; I'm actually being sincere. However, comments like asking what else I'm against seem to insinuate that I'm just randomly against certain things for the sake of doing it, and am a massive hypocrite, when in reality this is pretty concrete in my mind.



Touche, One-Who-Uses-Long-Words. ;3


----------



## Ricky (Aug 24, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Well, like I said, fantasy is one thing, and if it's you who's getting raped, then it's really a form of consent if you want it to happen, isn't it? But if you're forcing it on someone who _doesn't_ want it to happen, then that crosses the line.



exactly :-D


----------



## CoronaRadiata (Aug 24, 2009)

That's a little depressing, and a little MORE concerning.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 24, 2009)

I'm in a conversation with iamLI3 on YT about bestiality being natural.
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=ST73QNj9ujY

Discuss.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Shadow said:


> I'm in a conversation with iamLI3 on YT about bestiality being natural.
> http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=ST73QNj9ujY
> 
> Discuss.



quote taken from page


> -It is unnatural, and that can be due to the pleasure aspect. Though it's notï»¿ BESTIALITY WHICH YOU ARE WANTING TO DEBATE OVER. Sorry for large text, but homosexuality isn't interspecies intercourse.
> 
> -Defense? I thought this was a debate, not an argument. It's a reason. Tell me why I'm wrong to think animals don't seek other species for intercourse of procreation as a main intention. Also, without proof, you're wrong. I Googled, didn't find natural intercourse between species.



There have been cases in where animals have had intercourse with different species, and even in a natural process. The lack of results from google is not what I would consider a proper point.

Anywho, the term "bestiality" only applies when humans sexually relate with other species, otherwise it could be considered inter-species. The only difference between the two is the human element... Therefor, bestiality can be considered natural, just like homosexuality...


----------



## Shadow (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> There have been cases in where animals have had intercourse with different species, and even in a natural process. The lack of results from google is not what I would consider a proper point.
> 
> Anywho, the term "bestiality" only applies when humans sexually relate with other species, otherwise it could be considered inter-species. The only difference between the two is the human element... Therefor, bestiality can be considered natural, just like homosexuality...



-I would like visual or textual proof though.

-Doesn't nature intend for procreation within one's species?


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

Shadow said:


> -Doesn't nature intend for procreation within one's species?



Devil's advocate, technically a mule would be an example of such a thing. However, that's because they're genetically compatible, similar enough for it to work. Multiple species of dog can work with wolves, too, but again, because it's similar enough to work.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 24, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Devil's advocate, technically a mule would be an example of such a thing. However, that's because they're genetically compatible, similar enough for it to work. Multiple species of dog can work with wolves, too, but again, because it's similar enough to work.



I should have added that I meant in a broader difference.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

Shadow said:


> -I would like visual or textual proof though.
> 
> -Doesn't nature intend for procreation within one's species?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRRUTr4s9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TmSwF0mejg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Other_evidence_of_interspecies_sexual_activity

Note: Video one looks more like what dogs do for dominance, like humping your leg. But the second video seems more legit.


----------



## Cavy (Aug 24, 2009)

Hmmm, let me think of something here. Philia in the the word zoophila means love for animals right. No I not thinking about the sexual part so please actaully read what I got to say before you scream okay. Last time I check the world Philia means love, not the sexual love, but the normal kind of love. Sadly we idiots had confused the words love and sex and assumed that was the same so thus I gotten it twisted. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia

Now please educate yourselves on that term thank you.

So in other words if we admitted to having love for animals, like 60 percent of us would be in jail right now by using that same term. Won't that be a lovely twist? Don't you think?


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 24, 2009)

Is it just me, or has this forum become obsessed with bestiality as of late?


----------



## Thatch (Aug 24, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> Is it just me, or has this forum become obsessed with bestiality as of late?



It has. People like to talk about their interests :V


----------



## Wreth (Aug 24, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> Is it just me, or has this forum become obsessed with bestiality as of late?



At least it's intelligent discussions (for the most part). It's better than a load of shitposting.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> At least it's intelligent discussions (for the most part). It's better than a load of shitposting.


At least shitposting is funny and half of shitposters don't fuck their dogs :V


----------



## Runefox (Aug 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> At least shitposting is funny


Really? _Really?_ Well, OK. I guess some people have a different definition of funny. Posting random shit like 4chan isn't mine, though.



> and half of shitposters don't fuck their dogs :V


I would be very surprised if the opposite wasn't true.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRRUTr4s9c
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TmSwF0mejg
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Other_evidence_of_interspecies_sexual_activity
> 
> Note: Video one looks more like what dogs do for dominance, like humping your leg. But the second video seems more legit.



First vid: Seemed like a horny dog and the lion wasn't too into it.

Second vid: Didn't see much moving as I did sitting and the tiger adjusting where he was at. XD 

Also, being in captivity, something's bound to happen. Show me that in the wild, and then you have something.

Article: That just goes over similar species of the primate branch doing it. It's not as different as a human and a dog.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 24, 2009)

> This is exactly what I said. Your defense is that we mistreat them in other ways. That has nothing to do with mistreating them by fucking them, it's just opposed to owning animals in general.
> 
> And as for the harm thing, there isn't any good evidence to suggest that it is not harmful. Reality is reality, no matter what you want it to be. We simply don't know for sure what effects it has, but we do know that there IS potential for harm to be done. Why take the risk?



I'm not opposed to owning animals in general. I'm against causing unnecessary harm to the animals. Since I don't see definite harm in bestiality, I'm okay with it. You want to apply this whole consent issue to animals, and that they can't consent, which I disagree with as well, and that's generally a more human right. You can't imprison a human against their will but 70% of this forum supports zoos, which imprison animals, without consent, in unnatural enclosures, another criticism of bestiality.

There is reason to suggest it's not harmful. I told you the results of Miletski's research where it concerned injury to humans and animals involved in bestiality and the figures she got on actual penetration. People also say that cellphones could cause health risks, but they aren't banned. You're overreacting about a situation without any reason to suspect it to be dangerous. There's nothing suggesting that bestiality is intrinsically harmful to the animal so there is no reason to be against it.



> Hmmm, let me think of something here. Philia in the the word zoophila means love for animals right. No I not thinking about the sexual part so please actaully read what I got to say before you scream okay. Last time I check the world Philia means love, not the sexual love, but the normal kind of love. Sadly we idiots had confused the words love and sex and assumed that was the same so thus I gotten it twisted.



Zoophilia is used nowadays to refer to the sexual attraction of humans to non-human animals.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 24, 2009)

Interesting debate I found on the subject.

But yeah...



Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I'm not opposed to owning animals in general. I'm against causing unnecessary harm to the animals. Since I don't see definite harm in bestiality, I'm okay with it. You want to apply this whole consent issue to animals, and that they can't consent, which I disagree with as well, and that's generally a more human right. You can't imprison a human against their will but 70% of this forum supports zoos, which imprison animals, without consent, in unnatural enclosures, another criticism of bestiality.
> 
> There is reason to suggest it's not harmful. I told you the results of Miletski's research where it concerned injury to humans and animals involved in bestiality and the figures she got on actual penetration. People also say that cellphones could cause health risks, but they aren't banned. You're overreacting about a situation without any reason to suspect it to be dangerous. There's nothing suggesting that bestiality is intrinsically harmful to the animal so there is no reason to be against it.



There's nothing to say it's not harmful to the animal.  I have not seen enough evidence to either support of deny that it is harmful or that an animal is able to consent or not.

We can't talk to animals.  We don't know why they do the things they do.  We don't know what effect buggering your dog has.  Kids who get buggered end up with problems even if they are buggered in a way that doesn't physically harm them at the time.  Since we can't talk to dogs we don't know one way or the other what you're doing to them...

Yeah, you can't prove that it's always harmful but you can't prove otherwise, either.  Since the dog can't speak for itself why not give it the benefit of a doubt?


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> I'm not opposed to owning animals in general. I'm against causing unnecessary harm to the animals. Since I don't see definite harm in bestiality, I'm okay with it. You want to apply this whole consent issue to animals, and that they can't consent, which I disagree with as well, and that's generally a more human right. You can't imprison a human against their will but 70% of this forum supports zoos, which imprison animals, without consent, in unnatural enclosures, another criticism of bestiality.


If you were really against causing unnecessary harm, you wouldn't take the chance of hurting the animal (or, if you prefer, supporting the chance of hurting the animal) just to get your rocks off.  We've brought up multiple points over the past few months, showing many instances where an animal is hurt from some beastie having sex with it, yet you dismiss them on the premise that "not all cases end with the animal being hurt".  Sure, if you try to fuck your horse, you probably won't hurt it, but the law is there to protect people as well.  People NEED to be protected from themselves.  "I don't see definite harm in beastiality" is pretty much you just saying that since it isn't necessarily _proven_ that in 100% of the cases that the animal/person would be injured, that you support it as a whole, including the likely majority of cases in which an animal or person does get hurt.  If you really loved animals, and if the zoos you're supporting really loved the animals as much as they/you say they do, they wouldn't take that risk.  Alas, people are selfish and that's not the case.  

Where are you getting this 70% of the forum supports zoos statistic?  I can sort of agree with you on the consent issue being more of a human thing.  Zoos, though, often keep the animals in better living conditions than they would be in the wild.  It's for the good of the animals, in a lot of cases, especially the endangered animals.  Sure, there are abusive zoos out there that mistreat animals, but this isn't about them.  If you want to discuss zoos separately, make a thread. (I will be obligated to make a beastiality reference, though, just because it's tradition with any thread you start)  Beastiality is not "for the good of the animals", it's for the "good" of the people that want to get their rocks off some way. This is going again to your defense of beastiality by criminalizing other common "mistreatments" of animals to say that it's on the same level.  This is what I'm trying to get you to realize that you're doing.  You're saying that since zoos are evil and we support zoos, that we should support beastiality as well.  Just because they both are potentially harmful doesn't mean that we should legalize one just because the other is legalized.  Rather, as you've said sometimes, we should try to abolish the legal one.  The problem with this, however, is that it has nothing to do with beastiality and the topic at hand.  You're trying to inflame people by saying that they're mistreating their animals, getting them to defend it and say they aren't and then you try to squeeze beastiality in there as 'not wrong' under their logic.  It's not a valid point or argument, it's just you trying to deceive people into admitting that it's "not so bad" because the things that they do "can't be wrong"



			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> There is reason to suggest it's not harmful. I told you the results of Miletski's research where it concerned injury to humans and animals involved in bestiality and the figures she got on actual penetration. People also say that cellphones could cause health risks, but they aren't banned. You're overreacting about a situation without any reason to suspect it to be dangerous. There's nothing suggesting that bestiality is intrinsically harmful to the animal so there is no reason to be against it.


"Reason to suggest it's not harmful", not "proof that it isn't harmful" or even "reason to believe it's not harmful".  Basically, what you're saying is there's a possibility that it's not damaging to the animal, at least physically.  We've been back and forth for this for as long as you've been on this forum, Trp and yourself specifically.  She's brought forth a case where someone repeatedly let their dog switch from submissive to dominant and forced it back into submission.  This can be harmful to the animal, and while it may not be 100% of the cases, it's a majority of them (unless someone is fucking their dog and not the other way around, in which case even you agree it's dangerous and harmful).  

I also have a MAJOR issue with your last statement.  There's plenty of things suggesting that it's harmful to the animal, including diseases, infections, and tearing.  There are also the _possible_ psychological damages that the animal can obtain.  Even if there was no evidence to suggest that it's harmful, there's always a moral reason that lets people oppose things.  People have the right to have an opinion on something, no matter what it is.  People have the right to hate gays because they're morally opposed, and there's nothing wrong with it, technically.  It's still a reason to be against something, whether that reason is scientific or not.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 24, 2009)

> Interesting debate I found on the subject.



I'll read this later when I have time.



> There's nothing to say it's not harmful to the animal. I have not seen enough evidence to either support of deny that it is harmful or that an animal is able to consent or not.
> 
> We can't talk to animals. We don't know why they do the things they do. We don't know what effect buggering your dog has. Kids who get buggered end up with problems even if they are buggered in a way that doesn't physically harm them at the time. Since we can't talk to dogs we don't know one way or the other what you're doing to them...
> 
> Yeah, you can't prove that it's always harmful but you can't prove otherwise, either. Since the dog can't speak for itself why not give it the benefit of a doubt?



If you're taking a side you must have a certain amount of evidence that you trust.

Animals are NOT kids. Because something has an effect on human kids does not mean the same thing is true in other animals. You can't talk to animals but you can observe them and look for changes in their behaviour.

If you can't prove it's harmful, and the dog can't speak for itself why not give the person the benefit of the doubt and rather not imprison someone and ruin their life for a crime that was never actually committed.



> If you were really against causing unnecessary harm, you wouldn't take the chance of hurting the animal (or, if you prefer, supporting the chance of hurting the animal) just to get your rocks off. We've brought up multiple points over the past few months, showing many instances where an animal is hurt from some beastie having sex with it, yet you dismiss them on the premise that "not all cases end with the animal being hurt". Sure, if you try to fuck your horse, you probably won't hurt it, but the law is there to protect people as well. People NEED to be protected from themselves. "I don't see definite harm in beastiality" is pretty much you just saying that since it isn't necessarily _proven_ that in 100% of the cases that the animal/person would be injured, that you support it as a whole, including the likely majority of cases in which an animal or person does get hurt. If you really loved animals, and if the zoos you're supporting really loved the animals as much as they/you say they do, they wouldn't take that risk. Alas, people are selfish and that's not the case.



I'd actually like to change that harm thing to suffering. I think that word fits better. Yes there are multiple incidents where animals were hurt but I think there are many more incidents where animals are not hurt. You could be trying to ban something because of the minority effect, perhaps the ones that are generally abusive, not because of the act itself. It's not proven in a majority of cases either. The only study I know of where the negative effects were looked at had 2% of animals being injured. It's far from a complete study but it's the best available. You keep talking about this risk but you're not giving any evidence to show that it is actually a real risk.



> Where are you getting this 70% of the forum supports zoos statistic? I can sort of agree with you on the consent issue being more of a human thing. Zoos, though, often keep the animals in better living conditions than they would be in the wild. It's for the good of the animals, in a lot of cases, especially the endangered animals. Sure, there are abusive zoos out there that mistreat animals, but this isn't about them. If you want to discuss zoos separately, make a thread. (I will be obligated to make a beastiality reference, though, just because it's tradition with any thread you start) Beastiality is not "for the good of the animals", it's for the "good" of the people that want to get their rocks off some way. This is going again to your defense of beastiality by criminalizing other common "mistreatments" of animals to say that it's on the same level. This is what I'm trying to get you to realize that you're doing. You're saying that since zoos are evil and we support zoos, that we should support beastiality as well. Just because they both are potentially harmful doesn't mean that we should legalize one just because the other is legalized. Rather, as you've said sometimes, we should try to abolish the legal one. The problem with this, however, is that it has nothing to do with beastiality and the topic at hand. You're trying to inflame people by saying that they're mistreating their animals, getting them to defend it and say they aren't and then you try to squeeze beastiality in there as 'not wrong' under their logic. It's not a valid point or argument, it's just you trying to deceive people into admitting that it's "not so bad" because the things that they do "can't be wrong"



Zoo survey: http://forums.furaffinity.net/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1348
Most animals aren't in zoos for their own good either. Even ones that are in a zoo for their own good would actually be better off in nature reserve where they can interact with the rest of their environment.
I'm not saying that since you support zoos you should support bestiality, I'm saying that you need to get your idea of how you treat animals to follow a logical pattern. You're saying animals should be treated a certain way in one situation but then treated a completely different way in another situation, based mostly on how you feel about the situation.



> "Reason to suggest it's not harmful", not "proof that it isn't harmful" or even "reason to believe it's not harmful". Basically, what you're saying is there's a possibility that it's not damaging to the animal, at least physically. We've been back and forth for this for as long as you've been on this forum, Trp and yourself specifically. She's brought forth a case where someone repeatedly let their dog switch from submissive to dominant and forced it back into submission. This can be harmful to the animal, and while it may not be 100% of the cases, it's a majority of them (unless someone is fucking their dog and not the other way around, in which case even you agree it's dangerous and harmful).



A higher possibility that it's not harmful than that it is. 
Your whole dominance and submission argument is starting to crumble. I was looking up this whole dominance hierarchy in dogs and it turns out to be based upon some rather bad science and is now being called into question.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canine-Behavior-3553/Theory-Alpha-Role.htm
http://dogpublic.com/articles/article.aspx?sid=14&pid=1640
http://www.nonlineardogs.com/100MostSillyPart1-2.html



> I also have a MAJOR issue with your last statement. There's plenty of things suggesting that it's harmful to the animal, including diseases, infections, and tearing. There are also the _possible_ psychological damages that the animal can obtain. Even if there was no evidence to suggest that it's harmful, there's always a moral reason that lets people oppose things. People have the right to have an opinion on something, no matter what it is. People have the right to hate gays because they're morally opposed, and there's nothing wrong with it, technically. It's still a reason to be against something, whether that reason is scientific or not.



They do occur but you've presented nothing to suggest that they are common or that sexual contact is going to suddenly cause widespread infections. Laws should not be around to enforce one person's morals on another. They should only be to protect people from some negative action against them.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If you're taking a side you must have a certain amount of evidence that you trust.
> 
> Animals are NOT kids. Because something has an effect on human kids does not mean the same thing is true in other animals. You can't talk to animals but you can observe them and look for changes in their behaviour.
> 
> If you can't prove it's harmful, and the dog can't speak for itself why not give the person the benefit of the doubt and rather not imprison someone and ruin their life for a crime that was never actually committed.


 The crime was committed, whether there's a legitimate reason for it to be a crime or not.  The reason is because we, in general as a society, care about our animals and not only ourselves.  We want to keep Rover from being hurt or suffering psychological trauma, and would rather be safe than sorry. 



			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> I'd actually like to change that harm thing to suffering. I think that word fits better. Yes there are multiple incidents where animals were hurt but I think there are many more incidents where animals are not hurt. You could be trying to ban something because of the minority effect, perhaps the ones that are generally abusive, not because of the act itself. It's not proven in a majority of cases either. The only study I know of where the negative effects were looked at had 2% of animals being injured. It's far from a complete study but it's the best available. You keep talking about this risk but you're not giving any evidence to show that it is actually a real risk.


Suffering just makes the focus more specific, so in your case it would help you to use suffering.  Assault is illegal, and most of the times it only causes pain and damage that goes away quickly, and not suffering that lingers.  By switching from harm to suffering, you're essentially just looking at a smaller percentage of the statistics, and therefore giving you the ability to say "Hey, look, only 2% of the animals suffer after you have sex with them!" while completely disregarding the temporary effects.  

I'm not claiming to know the statistics, I'm just speculating, but since you've seen all these surveys, would you care to present them?  Sometimes an improper survey could do more harm than a proper one since it could misguide people instead of leaving those people ignorant. 



			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> Zoo survey: http://forums.furaffinity.net/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1348


Listen, Rakuen.  Honestly, I think you're a fairly intelligent kid that just has some issues and refuses to look at the other side of things.  You can't honestly believe that 54 votes out of 20,000 members on the forums represents a good cross section, can you?  Stop trying to bullshit us and bend numbers to make them support your cause.  



			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> Most animals aren't in zoos for their own good either. Even ones that are in a zoo for their own good would actually be better off in nature reserve where they can interact with the rest of their environment.
> I'm not saying that since you support zoos you should support bestiality, I'm saying that you need to get your idea of how you treat animals to follow a logical pattern. You're saying animals should be treated a certain way in one situation but then treated a completely different way in another situation, based mostly on how you feel about the situation.


"Better off" is a complete matter of opinion and depends wholly on the individual circumstances of each zoo.  Some zoos are expansive and let animals interact with their own species almost like normal life, except with less risk.  Others, however, are the abusive kind that keep animals in isolation.  

You're saying we need to use a logical pattern, but in order to do that, we have to follow one of the two paths that I mentioned earlier.  We either have to oppose both zoos and beastiality, or accept both.  Just because they deal with a few similar issues does not mean that they are both identical.  Face it, people can support things for reasons other than scientifically logical facts and premises.  They can also oppose things for those same reasons, be them moral, religious, or just personal preference.  Nothing has to be linear.  Sure, it may be "wrong" morally because the majority are just opposed to it and disgusted by it and don't really care whether it's damaging or not, but is that not democracy?  





			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> A higher possibility that it's not harmful than that it is.
> Your whole dominance and submission argument is starting to crumble. I was looking up this whole dominance hierarchy in dogs and it turns out to be based upon some rather bad science and is now being called into question.
> http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canine-Behavior-3553/Theory-Alpha-Role.htm
> http://dogpublic.com/articles/article.aspx?sid=14&pid=1640
> http://www.nonlineardogs.com/100MostSillyPart1-2.html


Even if there's a slightly higher probability, that doesn't mean that it should still be legal with a significant chance for harm to the animal and/or human. 

The dominance and submission argument isn't mine, it's just one that I was referencing. Going by your second link, if I understand it right, it's saying that wolves and possibly dogs don't force dominance on the rest of the pack, but rather are offered submission by another member of the pack in order to cement their dominance.  This actually supports Trp's argument in relation to Java (I think her name was?  If this is wrong and someone else, I'm sorry.) making her dog go from dominant to submissive.  It's just sort of reversed.  If the dog is naturally submissive to you, which they are because you take charge and take care of it, then by submitting to it, you can give it the idea that it is supposed to be dominant.  Then, after sex is over, you go back to being the dominant one.  This can severely alter the dog's psychology.  They aren't used to switching back and forth on a regular basis, they're used to having a role and maybe switching once or twice in their lifetime.  The article wasn't debunking the fact that there is a dominant leader, just the fact that the dominant leader is chosen by the pack and doesn't force the pack to be submissive to him.  That's what they're getting at.  They're trying to get people to stop trying to "show dominance" over a dog by forcing it to submit to them and they're trying to get people to realize that not all problems are an "issue of dominance". 




			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> They do occur but you've presented nothing to suggest that they are common or that sexual contact is going to suddenly cause widespread infections. Laws should not be around to enforce one person's morals on another. They should only be to protect people from some negative action against them.


I didn't say that they're 100%, but rather that they're possibilities.  I don't know of any studies on the matter that are reliable, nor do I care enough to try to find them.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 24, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> If you're taking a side you must have a certain amount of evidence that you trust.
> 
> Animals are NOT kids. Because something has an effect on human kids does not mean the same thing is true in other animals. You can't talk to animals but you can observe them and look for changes in their behaviour.
> 
> If you can't prove it's harmful, and the dog can't speak for itself why not give the person the benefit of the doubt and rather not imprison someone and ruin their life for a crime that was never actually committed.



I was arguing a point; I think I've said before that I have friends who are doggie touchers and although I might crack a joke at them here or there I would never turn them in.  They are my friends 

Just because I feel this way doesn't mean it's not creepy or wrong or disturbing, because frankly it is.  My point is you can't know what effects it has on the animal and in any case people are doing it to get their rocks off.  The reason I mentioned kids is not because an animal is like a kid; my point was _*you can do harm where it's not obvious it's harmful, even in the case of a child who is able to speak.*_

You are never going to defend your argument that bestiality can be ok for the same reason you can't prove that it is always harmful (as evidenced in the link I provided).  If someone is going to hump their dog despite this so be it; I don't really care enough to do anything.  If someone were torturing their pet or otherwise causing severe bodily injury that would be much different, IMO.  I don't think you can know for sure how it affects the pet but at the same time it's obviously not torture in the cases we're talking about (not forceful).



Jashwa said:


> We've been back and forth for this for as long as you've been on this forum, Trp and yourself specifically. She's brought forth a case where someone repeatedly let their dog switch from submissive to dominant and forced it back into submission. This can be harmful to the animal, and while it may not be 100% of the cases, it's a majority of them (unless someone is fucking their dog and not the other way around, in which case even you agree it's dangerous and harmful).



I've asked to see this in links or in writing or something I can refer to but I've yet to see it even though this has been brought up several times.  Do you or Trp or anyone have a source for this information to which I could refer?


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

Ricky said:


> I've asked to see this in links or in writing or something I can refer to but I've yet to see it even though this has been brought up several times.  Do you or Trp or anyone have a source for this information to which I could refer?


I'm pretty sure I've seen Trp provide links, multiple times, but they were anecdotal, not case studies.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 24, 2009)

> The crime was committed, whether there's a legitimate reason for it to be a crime or not. The reason is because we, in general as a society, care about our animals and not only ourselves. We want to keep Rover from being hurt or suffering psychological trauma, and would rather be safe than sorry.



Well I think whether it should be a crime or not is actually quite an important question. There's nothing wrong with safe rather than sorry but you don't have anything to say that it actually isn't safe. If you did then fine but if you can't show that it's likely to be harmful then let people do what they want to. If somebody actually does some proper research and gets results showing it's bad then that's a different story. As such I'd imagine whether harm is doen or not will depend on the animal and the action involved.



> Suffering just makes the focus more specific, so in your case it would help you to use suffering. Assault is illegal, and most of the times it only causes pain and damage that goes away quickly, and not suffering that lingers. By switching from harm to suffering, you're essentially just looking at a smaller percentage of the statistics, and therefore giving you the ability to say "Hey, look, only 2% of the animals suffer after you have sex with them!" while completely disregarding the temporary effects.



Actually I was changing to suffering because I don't think there's anything wrong with killing an animal to eat it. Also it allows you to just kill insects, who wouldn't suffer and aren't concious. Cows might be concious, which makes killing them a little bit harder to justify really.
Which temporary effects are these? More ones that you've imagined could possibly occur or ones which have actually been shown to occur?



> I'm not claiming to know the statistics, I'm just speculating, but since you've seen all these surveys, would you care to present them? Sometimes an improper survey could do more harm than a proper one since it could misguide people instead of leaving those people ignorant.



They're bad speculations because they're not based on any data. In any case the study isn't an improper survey, it's just not exactly what it's purpose was, however it is real data. 
15% of men and 9% of female zoophiles had to get medical treatment related to their bestiality. Only 2% of the participants in the study had ever caused an animal to need medical attention.



> Listen, Rakuen. Honestly, I think you're a fairly intelligent kid that just has some issues and refuses to look at the other side of things. You can't honestly believe that 54 votes out of 20,000 members on the forums represents a good cross section, can you? Stop trying to bullshit us and bend numbers to make them support your cause.



I know that but it is a fairly large chunk of people, when I looked, that support it. It is also a practice which would violate multiple human rights, which is effectively what you want to apply to other animals, although in very selective circumstances.



> You're saying we need to use a logical pattern, but in order to do that, we have to follow one of the two paths that I mentioned earlier. We either have to oppose both zoos and beastiality, or accept both. Just because they deal with a few similar issues does not mean that they are both identical. Face it, people can support things for reasons other than scientifically logical facts and premises. They can also oppose things for those same reasons, be them moral, religious, or just personal preference. Nothing has to be linear. Sure, it may be "wrong" morally because the majority are just opposed to it and disgusted by it and don't really care whether it's damaging or not, but is that not democracy?



I'd say accept them both, unless it can demonstrated that the animal is harmed by the sex. If there's no harm then I don't see a problem.
Sure people can have opinions based on feelings and religions but those opinions should not apply to people who don't share them. Facts are constant regardless of your beliefs. And no I don't think the majority opinion should have anything to do with it. The facts are what are true, incidentally that's why I'm slightly opposed to democracy, decisions are made by a majority and not by what is correct.



> Even if there's a slightly higher probability, that doesn't mean that it should still be legal with a significant chance for harm to the animal and/or human.



There's no sign of a significant chance of harm to the aniamal and if a person does somethign to injure themselves that's their business. If it doesn't interfere with others I don't care what they do.



> The dominance and submission argument isn't mine, it's just one that I was referencing. Going by your second link, if I understand it right, it's saying that wolves and possibly dogs don't force dominance on the rest of the pack, but rather are offered submission by another member of the pack in order to cement their dominance. This actually supports Trp's argument in relation to Java (I think her name was? If this is wrong and someone else, I'm sorry.) making her dog go from dominant to submissive. It's just sort of reversed. If the dog is naturally submissive to you, which they are because you take charge and take care of it, then by submitting to it, you can give it the idea that it is supposed to be dominant. Then, after sex is over, you go back to being the dominant one. This can severely alter the dog's psychology. They aren't used to switching back and forth on a regular basis, they're used to having a role and maybe switching once or twice in their lifetime. The article wasn't debunking the fact that there is a dominant leader, just the fact that the dominant leader is chosen by the pack and doesn't force the pack to be submissive to him.



You're misunderstanding. There is a leader yes, but that leader can engage in submissive activities. It's not switching between dominance and submission because they aren't fixed entities like that. It won't think it's suddenly supposed to be dominant. The point is that the pack structure is flexible. You're stuck with this idea that there are rigid roles and you have to act correctly for a specific role.



> Just because I feel this way doesn't mean it's not creepy or wrong or disturbing, because frankly it is. My point is you can't know what effects it has on the animal and in any case people are doing it to get their rocks off. The reason I mentioned kids is not because an animal is like a kid; my point was _*you can do harm where it's not obvious it's harmful, even in the case of a child who is able to speak.*_



You can study the effects, or send a dog to a animal psychologist. As far as I know animals don't hide things away like people do. And if you've done harm that doesn't show in any way and can't be observed then chances you didn't actually do any harm.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 24, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> You can study the effects, or send a dog to a animal psychologist. As far as I know animals don't hide things away like people do.



I doubt many of the dog monglers take their pets to an animal psychologist on a regular basis.  I could picture that...

"Sally has been acting strange.  She used to have sex with me on a daily basis but she doesn't seem interested anymore.  Do you think she still loves me?"

_animal specialist picks up the phone..._ "yeah, Betty could you please call security?  NOW?"

Not that I trust anyone with a title of "Animal Psychologist" anyway.  Human psycology is fucked to begin with and mostly based on statistics and guesswork so I'm highly skeptical of such a field when applied to animals _you can't even talk to_.

Also...



> And if you've done harm that doesn't show in any way and can't be observed then chances you didn't actually do any harm.



How the heck do you come to that conclusion?  Is that like...  a guess?


----------



## Cavy (Aug 24, 2009)

Fuzzle said:


> Is it just me, or has this forum become obsessed with bestiality as of late?



Furries keep bring this topic up over and over again. So that's why is going to keep on getting talked about.  Oh in the meantime, I haven't seen topics on cubbie porn, fursecution, etc as of late? I wonder are we "obsessed" with those too?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 24, 2009)

Ricky said:


> Gotta poke 'em all!



Either way works XD


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

> And if you've done harm that doesn't show in any way and can't be observed then chances you didn't actually do any harm.


As I said in another thread:


NewfDraggie said:


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


Then who I was talking too replied with:


Shay Feral said:


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





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, 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.


I think this stands in this thread as well.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> As I said in another thread:
> 
> Then who I was talking too replied with:
> 
> ...



These people use the same old arguements everytime this discussion comes up. And each time they try to prove it doesn't harm the animals. I think people like growlith are just saying that to try to make what they like look okay. When ever people like Growlith are asked to prove their side, they never do.

Probably because they know they can't prove anything. I mean, what is the point in haveing any form of discussion without anyform of evidence or reference to back up a claim?


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

A possible 480,000,000 people want to fuck animals. IDEA. We say it's legal, they adopt the millions of pets from shelters, we make it illegal again after surge of adoption. Win/Win, no?


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

theLight said:


> A possible 480,000,000 people want to fuck animals. IDEA. We say it's legal, they adopt the millions of pets from shelters, we make it illegal again after surge of adoption. Win/Win, no?


Then they molest their pets anyway.


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Then they molest their pets anyway.


Hmmm.... We put special sensors on the pets' pen0rs to alert local officials of inappropriate behavior.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

theLight said:


> Hmmm.... We put special sensors on the pets' pen0rs to alert local officials of inappropriate behavior.


That joke wasn't even funny.  I'm disappointed.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

But all the furryops wouldn't be stopped by some sensor.


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But all the furryops wouldn't be stopped by some sensor.


No, but a baton to the head once it is triggered will. Oh yes, and the jail tiem, plenty of un-consenting raep in there. :3

(Detectable? It could be as simple as the information chip they insert on the neck, I don't think a dog-f00k3r is going to try amateur surgery on what they want. Yay logic )


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

It was a bad joke that you attempted to make real, do I have too explain how that won't work, or will somebody else?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It was a bad joke that you attempted to make real, do I have too explain how that won't work, or will somebody else?



I'd like to see your explanation, I love your indepth explanations. It will give me something to read as it is now 4am, i am buzzing my tits off on two powerfull energy drinks, so i am high on caffeine, ontop of that i have a flamin cough keeping me awake to.


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It was a bad joke that you attempted to make real, do I have too explain how that won't work, or will somebody else?



Yeah, yeah, I get it. Might as well dream up some kinda plan. :[


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

theLight said:


> No, but a baton to the head once it is triggered will. Oh yes, and the jail tiem, plenty of un-consenting raep in there. :3
> 
> (Detectable? It could be as simple as the information chip they insert on the neck, I don't think a dog-f00k3r is going to try amateur surgery on what they want. Yay logic )


There's no chip in existence that would monitor whatever the animal is doing/feeling and alert authorities when a guy touches it.  Information chips=\=magic, dude.


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> There's no chip in existence that would monitor whatever the animal is doing/feeling and alert authorities when a guy touches it.  Information chips=\=magic, dude.


Realistically, such a chip could be manufactured. It's purpose would be to monitor blood-flow and nerve activity. When elevated to a certain level the chip can give off an alarm to the local authorities. Once again, dreams....


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 24, 2009)

theLight said:


> Realistically, such a chip could be manufactured. It's purpose would be to monitor blood-flow and nerve activity. When elevated to a certain level the chip can give off an alarm to the local authorities. Once again, dreams....



The only flaw is, it isn't just something sexual that could elevate the blood flow and heart rate, and nerve activity.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

theLight said:


> Hmmm.... We put special sensors on the pets' pen0rs to alert local officials of inappropriate behavior.



Should put a sensor in your head so that any illegal thoughts would trigger an alarm and you would be arrested... Nuff said


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

theLight said:


> Realistically, such a chip could be manufactured. It's purpose would be to monitor blood-flow and nerve activity. When elevated to a certain level the chip can give off an alarm to the local authorities. Once again, dreams....


If you honestly believe that'd be accurate and reliable, than there's no hope for you.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 24, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Should put a sensor in your head so that any illegal thoughts would trigger an alarm and you would be arrested... Nuff said



Could do that with Zoophiles.


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The only flaw is, it isn't just something sexual that could elevate the blood flow and heart rate, and nerve activity.


True. But! Impulse patterns are specific to a certain action. Only one specific oscillation of electrical currents will move your left index finger. Granted, the dog could start to become erect during play as they often do. That's where the blood-flow monitor comes in. If the pattern is specific to an erection and there is enough blood to create a full erection, then it will alert. 

Life is but a dream.....


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2009)

theLight said:


> True. But! Impulse patterns are specific to a certain action. Only one specific oscillation of electrical currents will move your left index finger. Granted, the dog could start to become erect during play as they often do. That's where the blood-flow monitor comes in. If the pattern is specific to an erection and there is enough blood to create a full erection, then it will alert.
> 
> Life is but a dream.....


Or the dog could just be horny and want to fuck another dog.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Could do that with Zoophiles.



Would have to do it with everyone... Including you... Not just Zoophiles... I suppose our constitutional rights takes a back seat to the prevention of animal groin licking.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'd like to see your explanation, I love your indepth explanations. It will give me something to read as it is now 4am, i am buzzing my tits off on two powerfull energy drinks, so i am high on caffeine, ontop of that i have a flamin cough keeping me awake to.



Alright...

Animals are still allowed to have sex with each other and masturbate, they do it all the time. If this chip goes off at any sexual activity, such as heightened hormones, sensors, or blood flow/pressure then it would be going off anytime they had a bad dream, was out for a run, seen another dog (for my example I'm using dogs, could be any animal), went into heat, or any other garden variety dog stuff.

No chip has the ability to run off body heat for its energy source, sense hormones/pressure/heartrate/what-ever, yet have the broadcasting power to send it (possibly) hundreds or thousands of kilometers along with the GPS coordinates. If they did have such a chip it would be in everybody, no more missing persons.

This process is also very, very expensive...the chips alone would be a few hundred billion dollars, let alone the surgery charges. Most people who are into bestiality wouldn't bring their animals in for the chip surgery in the first place, and the negatives out-weight the positives. Let alone all the false positives, surgery issues, or other things causing a lot of money loss, false jail-time/loss of a pet, or other issues.

Finally, dogs aren't the only animal's involved so some things are too small for a chip to fit in.


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> Or the dog could just be horny and want to fuck another dog.



Yes, yes... Any ideas?




> Finally, dogs aren't the only animal's involved so some things are too small for a chip to fit in.


In this dream, we have developed technology thus far.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

It's physically *impossible* for a chip to run of the body temperature of the host, a large range of body temperatures (different animals), yet even have the ability to broadcast GPS, let alone having chemical/heartrate/anything sensors and broadcasting that as well. :\


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's physically *impossible* for a chip to run of the body temperature of the host, a large range of body temperatures (different animals), yet even have the ability to broadcast GPS, let alone having chemical/heartrate/anything sensors and broadcasting that as well. :\



Hmmm... Aha! Cybernetics. The chip can be intertwined within the tissue itself, allowing for sensors to be attached to necessary regions and allowing more space for the broadcasting circuitry!

EDIT: Oh yes, the energy problem... well, heat energy to electrical energy transfer would not work on 'scalies... W.I.P  m0ar research D:
EDITEDIT: I have found pages suggesting that sperm, oh the irony, can be used for fuel for nanobots. Certainly an adaptation is required for a chip, but since we're talking cybernetics already might as well.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 24, 2009)

Scalies still have a body temp...they're not literally cold-blooded...but no, you can't do all of those things by making it take up more of the body...the amount of heat required is more than the host can put out.


----------



## theLight (Aug 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Scalies still have a body temp...they're not literally cold-blooded...but no, you can't do all of those things by making it take up more of the body...the amount of heat required is more than the host can put out.



Sperm fuel a-go then?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> I doubt many of the dog monglers take their pets to an animal psychologist on a regular basis.  I could picture that...
> 
> "Sally has been acting strange. She used to have sex with me on a daily basis but she doesn't seem interested anymore. Do you think she still loves me?"
> 
> ...



Actually there are some zoophiles who have participated in surveys and some of them would no doubt be wiling to participate in other experiments, particularly in countries where bestiality is legal. You'd get a bunch of zoos and their animal partners and then sendthe animals to vets and therapists to see whether they show any negative signs. You don't have to talk to something to learn about it.



> How the heck do you come to that conclusion?  Is that like...  a guess?



It's logic. If it's not obvious it's harmful then why do you suspect it is? If I told you drinking water is harmful but you can't see the effects you're not going to pay any attention. How can you say something is harmful, but there's no sign of harm?



> I think this stands in this thread as well. 		QUOTE]
> 
> I replied in the other thread. Burden of proof is for claiming it does cause harm. You can't prove a negative. And you are also trying to prove your point.
> 
> ...


----------



## Telnac (Aug 25, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> It's physically *impossible* for a chip to run of the body temperature of the host, a large range of body temperatures (different animals), yet even have the ability to broadcast GPS, let alone having chemical/heartrate/anything sensors and broadcasting that as well. :\


Very true.  But I read an article ( http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/blood-battery.htm/printable ) that mentioned  research projects that had developed a way for an electronic device to run off of the host's blood sugar (as well as stuff like sweat, urine...)

They're still a ways off from human trials of implantable bio-batteries, but the technology is feasible.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It's logic. If it's not obvious it's harmful then why do you suspect it is? If I told you drinking water is harmful but you can't see the effects you're not going to pay any attention. How can you say something is harmful, but there's no sign of harm?



You probably know animals often hide pain so I won't even bother going into that.  I already gave my example of molested kids.  What about rape victims?  A lot of the time they are too ashamed to come out and even say anything happened.  You don't think there's any damage they suffered at all because they show no signs?  And guess what...  _*THEY CAN TALK!*_

So no, it's not logic, it's a faulty assumption to provide a basis that there is nothing wrong with molesting your pets (who pretty much are rape victims in my opinion whether it's forceful or not).


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> You probably know animals often hide pain so I won't even bother going into that. I already gave my example of molested kids. What about rape victims? A lot of the time they are too ashamed to come out and even say anything happened. You don't think there's any damage they suffered at all because they show no signs? Guess what... _*THEY CAN TALK!*_
> 
> So no, it's not logic, it's a faulty assumption to provide a basis that there is nothing wrong with molesting your pets (who pretty much are rape victims in my opinion whether it's forceful or not).



Rape victims show very definite signs. The entire way that they act changes. As far as I've heard they can become extremely withdrawn, emotional and engage in compulsive washing. They don't always admit what happened but they don't go about their lives the same way as before.

I'd say it's wrong to assume something without any supporting evidence. There isn't a leaning of evidence towards bestiality being harmful. And animals are able to consent. They can react favourably or negatively to certain actions. Even a friendly pet might bite you if you touch it when it's injured or something else.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Rape victims show very definite signs. The entire way that they act changes. As far as I've heard they can become extremely withdrawn, emotional and engage in compulsive washing. They don't always admit what happened but they don't go about their lives the same way as before.
> 
> I'd say it's wrong to assume something without any supporting evidence. There isn't a leaning of evidence towards bestiality being harmful. And animals are able to consent. They can react favourably or negatively to certain actions. Even a friendly pet might bite you if you touch it when it's injured or something else.


You didn't mention the kids that get molested and how they must not have any mental pain or anguish because they don't show it.  Also, rape victims don't always change towards everyone else, they can hide it and merely deal with it when they're alone.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> You didn't mention the kids that get molested and how they must not have any mental pain or anguish because they don't show it. Also, rape victims don't always change towards everyone else, they can hide it and merely deal with it when they're alone.



Who says they don't show it? I said they do. There's a whole page on wikpedia dedicated to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_Trauma_Syndrome


----------



## Ricky (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Rape victims show very definite signs. The entire way that they act changes. As far as I've heard they can become extremely withdrawn, emotional and engage in compulsive washing. They don't always admit what happened but they don't go about their lives the same way as before.



So how does this translate to dogs? (rhetorical question)  Also, I'm sure this varies WIDELY from person to person and  since people don't normally see a rape victim and just call it right off the bat I'd assume the same would go for dogs.  I also wouldn't be surprised if trained professionals would be able to see a marked difference in these animals but there isn't enough research done to know for sure one way or the other.



> I'd say it's wrong to assume something without any supporting evidence. There isn't a leaning of evidence towards bestiality being harmful. And animals are able to consent. They can react favourably or negatively to certain actions. Even a friendly pet might bite you if you touch it when it's injured or something else.


There isn't enough evidence on either side, so I'm giving the one who can't speak for himself the benefit of a doubt.  Until you can prove to me it's doing the animal no harm (which I'm sure won't happen) I'm sticking to that stance.  I'm also dubious if an animal can consent -- there's a lot of debate on this as well and being a domesticated pet's owner that brings in complications as well.

A lot of people _think_ they understand animals a lot better than they do.

That being said, I think it's obvious it can be done without causing any severe bodily injury or pain to the animal, so I honestly think people make a bigger deal out of it than it is.  If you asked me if I thought someone should go to jail for it I'd say no.

You're never going to convince me it's not wrong without some extraordinary research that doesn't exist.  That's just the way it stands.  If someone wants to diddle their pets then whatever just don't rationalize it and tell me why it's right.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Who says they don't show it? I said they do. There's a whole page on wikpedia dedicated to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_Trauma_Syndrome


You said they weren't hurt if you can't notice it.  Yet, if those people hide it away and only deal with it in private, than you wouldn't notice it, and therefore there must be nothing wrong, right?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> So how does this translate to dogs? (rhetorical question) Also, I'm sure this varies WIDELY from person to person and since people don't normally see a rape victim and just call it right off the bat I'd assume the same would go for dogs. I also wouldn't be surprised if trained professionals would be able to see a marked difference in these animals but there isn't enough research done to know for sure one way or the other.



Unless you know someone well you wouldn't notice any changes in their behaviour. People should know their pets well though considering the amount of time they probably spend around them. Zoophiles generally spend more time and give their animals more attention so if there is a change they should see it.



> There isn't enough evidence on either side, so I'm giving the one who can't speak for himself the benefit of a doubt. Until you can prove to me it's doing the animal no harm (which I'm sure won't happen) I'm sticking to that stance. I'm also dubious if an animal can consent -- there's a lot of debate on this as well and being a domesticated pet's owner that brings in complications as well.



If you don't think there's enough evidence then don't take a stand on either side. And of course you can't prove it's doing no harm, because you can't prove a negative! You have to at least have realistic expectations of what someone can produce.



> You said they weren't hurt if you can't notice it. Yet, if those people hide it away and only deal with it in private, than you wouldn't notice it, and therefore there must be nothing wrong, right?



It's still noticeable, whether you are actually there to see it or not. I can't see what you're wearing but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to see what you're wearing.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Unless you know someone well you wouldn't notice any changes in their behaviour. People should know their pets well though considering the amount of time they probably spend around them. Zoophiles generally spend more time and give their animals more attention so if there is a change they should see it.


The zoophiles may know their animal well, but they aren't going to think that the animal is feeling down because it's a rape victim, nor are they going to care.  They're going to think that the animal is just feeling ill or something because it can't be possible that them fucking their dog was what made it change behaviors.  Plus, if only the zoophile knows that the dog is injured, then no one is ever going to find out, because the dogfucker isn't going to turn himself in. 





			
				Rakuen said:
			
		

> If you don't think there's enough evidence then don't take a stand on either side. And of course you can't prove it's doing no harm, because you can't prove a negative! You have to at least have realistic expectations of what someone can produce.


You can't prove it's doing no harm because there are cases where it has harmed dogs.  Even if they're anecdotal and not scientific studies, they're still instances where an animal was hurt.  That means there's at least a chance that the animals could be hurt.  





			
				Growlithe said:
			
		

> It's still noticeable, whether you are actually there to see it or not. I can't see what you're wearing but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to see what you're wearing.


It's noticeable, if you're omniscient.  If you're not there to see it, then from your point it didn't happen.  Your basis is that it can't hurt the dogs because when people get raped it gets noticed 100% of the time as a change in behavior.  Not only is this not the case because not everyone's behavior changes in general, but because if their behavior only changed when they were alone, than no one would notice.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Unless you know someone well you wouldn't notice any changes in their behaviour.



People don't always notice a change in behavior and some people will show it more than others.  Your link is irrelevant because it describes a syndrome not all rape victims even suffer.  Also, people =/= dogs so who says they will react the same way?  Quit trying to win a failed argument.  We've already shown you can do harm and it not be apparent, which counters your original point.



> If you don't think there's enough evidence then don't take a stand on either side. And of course you can't prove it's doing no harm, because you can't prove a negative! You have to at least have realistic expectations of what someone can produce.



NO U



> It's still noticeable, whether you are actually there to see it or not. I can't see what you're wearing but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to see what you're wearing.



No, it's not.  It's not always noticeable in people so why the hell do you think the sa...

Ah fuck it.  This is going nowhere.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> It's logic. If it's not obvious it's harmful then why do you suspect it is? If I told you drinking water is harmful but you can't see the effects you're not going to pay any attention. How can you say something is harmful, but there's no sign of harm?


As I've said, three times now; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; you're appealing to ignorance, this is a fallacy and isn't even logical.


Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Rape victims show very definite signs.


No, they don't. Actually you can't even tell for the majority of the cases, even if you're a doctor.


> The entire way that they act changes.


No, it doesn't. And even if it did, the whole after you fuck the dog the dog wants more sex is an attitude change, thus proving your assumption wrong; rape doesn't change how people act for most cases.


> As far as I've heard they can become extremely withdrawn, emotional and engage in compulsive washing.


No, no, no. NO; you're wrong, on oh-so-many levels, please stop before you offend somebody.


> They don't always admit what happened but they don't go about their lives the same way as before.


Most don't admit it, most go about their lives fine.



> I'd say it's wrong to assume something without any supporting evidence.


Hypocritical much? Your entire post above this is assuming rape victims are all messed up afterward. Your entire argument is that fucking animals isn't harmful because there's no evidence of harm, as I've said this is a appeal to ignorance and it's quite clear you can't support that there's no damage, on any level.



> There isn't a leaning of evidence towards bestiality being harmful.


Prove it.


> And animals are able to consent.


No more than a child.


> They can react favourably or negatively to certain actions. Even a friendly pet might bite you if you touch it when it's injured or something else.


When it's injured or something. Might bite you. These are half truths, your logical fallacies know no boundaries it seems. You want to believe it isn't hurting them so you don't feel so bad doing it, but if there was cold hard evidence slapped into your face you would continue doing what you do because *you* enjoy it and *you don't care about the animal.* 

You count what you -think- is for you, and leave out anything against you. You're the perfect example of why bestiality should continue staying illegal and have a more harsh punishment globally; you're all morons.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 25, 2009)

> The zoophiles may know their animal well, but they aren't going to think that the animal is feeling down because it's a rape victim, nor are they going to care. They're going to think that the animal is just feeling ill or something because it can't be possible that them fucking their dog was what made it change behaviors. Plus, if only the zoophile knows that the dog is injured, then no one is ever going to find out, because the dogfucker isn't going to turn himself in.



Zoophiles do care though. Other people are likely to see the animal too thoug and know about the bestiality. On average Miletski found that 8 people know about a man's bestility and 4 about a female's bestiality.



> You can't prove it's doing no harm because there are cases where it has harmed dogs. Even if they're anecdotal and not scientific studies, they're still instances where an animal was hurt. That means there's at least a chance that the animals could be hurt.



You take a horse out for a ride and it might put it's foot ina hole and break it's leg. Therefore riding horses should be banned because it could harm animals.



> People don't always notice a change in behavior and some people will show it more than others. Your link is irrelevant because it describes a syndrome not all rape victims even suffer. Also, people =/= dogs so who says they will react the same way? Quit trying to win a failed argument. We've already shown you can do harm and it not be apparent, which counters your original point.



I didn't say that they'd react the same way. I was showing that rape has an observable effect on people. You haven't shown non-apparent harm because as soon as you show it it is apparent! You can't show something that isn't there.



> As I've said, three times now; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; you're appealing to ignorance, this is a fallacy and isn't even logical.



The evidence that we have is pointing towards it not being harmful. You can't claim that because there's no evidence it must be true.



> No, they don't. Actually you can't even tell for the majority of the cases, even if you're a doctor.



Doctors don't follow people around and watch how they act before and after a person gets raped.



> Most don't admit it, most go about their lives fine.



So you're saying that most people are unaffected by rape?



> Hypocritical much? Your entire post above this is assuming rape victims are all messed up afterward. Your entire argument is that fucking animals isn't harmful because there's no evidence of harm, as I've said this is a appeal to ignorance and it's quite clear you can't support that there's no damage, on any level.



Most are. That's why rape victims are sent to counselling. It's not because it's a fun thing to send people to. It's not an appeal to ignorance, it's an appeal to what we actually know. You want someone to prove something that's impossible.



> Prove it.



Only 2% harm to animals in the only study I know of which looks at the subject. The whole idea of psychological damage due to dominance and submission is based on an idea that is currently being questioned and removed. There's nothing showing bestiality to be harmful. 



> No more than a child.



Two different things. Ones immature, one's mature. And their psychologies are not the same.



> When it's injured or something. Might bite you. These are half truths, your logical fallacies know no boundaries it seems. You want to believe it isn't hurting them so you don't feel so bad doing it, but if there was cold hard evidence slapped into your face you would continue doing what you do because *you* enjoy it and *you don't care about the animal.*



If I saw evidence that it was genuinely harmful to animals then I would be against it. But there is no such evidence.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 25, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> The evidence that we have is pointing towards it not being harmful. You can't claim that because there's no evidence it must be true.


No, it doesn't. And no, I'm not. I'm saying that to you; do you understand what an appeal to ignorance is? Look it up. Now you're attempting to twist it back onto me, when in-fact you're the one saying "there's no evidence of harm and thus it must be fine" when that's a logical fallacy, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Show me this evidence you speak of that prove everybody in this thread, and just abotu everybody on the planet wrong


> Doctors don't follow people around and watch how they act before and after a person gets raped.


What does this have to do with anything? One logical fallacy after another, it seems.


> So you're saying that most people are unaffected by rape?


Yes, yes I am.


> Most are. That's why rape victims are sent to counselling. It's not because it's a fun thing to send people to. It's not an appeal to ignorance, it's an appeal to what we actually know. You want someone to prove something that's impossible.


You're wrong~ I know plenty of rape victims that go on with life fine, you only hear about the ones that don't; if you only hear about the ones that support your claim you're missing the rest, if you assume the rest don't exist then yes...it's another case of you appealing to ignorance.


> Only 2% harm to animals in the only study I know of which looks at the subject.


Linnnnkkkkksss pleeeeasssseeeee.


> The whole idea of psychological damage due to dominance and submission is based on an idea that is currently being questioned and removed. There's nothing showing bestiality to be harmful.


Appeal to ignorance, for the thousandth time. Shut up then back it up.


> Two different things. Ones immature, one's mature. And their psychologies are not the same.


No...it doesn't work that way, maturity levels are the growth of the body, just because the body has grown more doesn't mean the mentality has. So no, it's the same thing as fucking a infant, their brain is less complex actually.


> If I saw evidence that it was genuinely harmful to animals then I would be against it. But there is no such evidence.


No you wouldn't, not at all.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 26, 2009)

> No, it doesn't. And no, I'm not. I'm saying that to you; do you understand what an appeal to ignorance is? Look it up. Now you're attempting to twist it back onto me, when in-fact you're the one saying "there's no evidence of harm and thus it must be fine" when that's a logical fallacy, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> 
> Show me this evidence you speak of that prove everybody in this thread, and just abotu everybody on the planet wrong



Frankly you're appealing to ignorance even more. You don't have evidence that it is harmful but still claiming that it is because there's no evidence to the contrary. That's just as bad. 
I've mentioned parts of the evidence. Also you're claiming that bestiality is harmful; that's a claim that requires evidence to back it up. Evidence you haven't provided. Just because it's the main opinion doesn't mean it's right.



> What does this have to do with anything? One logical fallacy after another, it seems.



It has to do with doctors only being able to examine people for a limited time and only their physical symptoms without any knowledge of their psychological state or previous behaviour.



> You're wrong~ I know plenty of rape victims that go on with life fine, you only hear about the ones that don't; if you only hear about the ones that support your claim you're missing the rest, if you assume the rest don't exist then yes...it's another case of you appealing to ignorance.



Fair enough the number needing help seems lower than expected but is still up to 50% (http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/11/2/49.pdf)



> Linnnnkkkkksss pleeeeasssseeeee.



Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia by Hani Miletski. It's a book, there aren't links.



> Appeal to ignorance, for the thousandth time. Shut up then back it up.



http://dogpublic.com/articles/article.aspx?sid=14&pid=1640
Current ideas about how dogs are dominant and in a strict hierarchy are being challenged because it seems to have been based off bad research on wolves.



> No...it doesn't work that way, maturity levels are the growth of the body, just because the body has grown more doesn't mean the mentality has. So no, it's the same thing as fucking a infant, their brain is less complex actually.



It's not the same thing. You can't compare the infant of one species to the adult of another species.


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 26, 2009)

Rakuen Growlithe said:


> Frankly you're appealing to ignorance even more. You don't have evidence that it is harmful but still claiming that it is because there's no evidence to the contrary. That's just as bad.
> I've mentioned parts of the evidence. Also you're claiming that bestiality is harmful; that's a claim that requires evidence to back it up. Evidence you haven't provided. Just because it's the main opinion doesn't mean it's right.


I've been asking, no demanding you to prove your argument to change our minds. You can't, and it's already known it harms the animal, clearly it being illegal in 99% of the world must show something. I'm not appealing to any ignorance, I'm almost begging you to prove me wrong whereas you're not even willing to think that you're harming your fucktoys.


> It has to do with doctors only being able to examine people for a limited time and only their physical symptoms without any knowledge of their psychological state or previous behaviour.


Again, what does this have to do with -anything-? What are you talking about?


> Fair enough the number needing help seems lower than expected but is still up to 50% (http://pb.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/11/2/49.pdf)


50% of known rape victims, which means it's less than 50%.


> Understanding Bestiality and Zoophilia by Hani Miletski. It's a book, there aren't links.


Well you can link the book, lets see who wrote it. Quoting an authority is not evidence.


> http://dogpublic.com/articles/article.aspx?sid=14&pid=1640
> Current ideas about how dogs are dominant and in a strict hierarchy are being challenged because it seems to have been based off bad research on wolves.


You're trying to flick over to another topic, when not one time have I mentioned hierarchy. Stop trying to change the subject and prove animals aren't being harmed.


> It's not the same thing. You can't compare the infant of one species to the adult of another species.


Yes you can, who say's you can't? You? Har.
If the mentality is the same then it's comparable.


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes you can, who say's you can't? You? Har.
> If the mentality is the same then it's comparable.



You can teach a puppy to behave in just months... For humans it takes about 18 years lol... And still there is no guarantee


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> You can teach a puppy to behave in just months... For humans it takes about 18 years lol... And still there is no guarantee


where the feck you from if it takes 18 years?


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> You can teach a puppy to behave in just months... For humans it takes about 18 years lol... And still there is no guarantee



For a human it usually takes till puberty or less, obviously you're faulty. I wonder if it shows :V


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

Crysix Corps said:


> where the feck you from if it takes 18 years?


Tis a joke



szopaw said:


> For a human it usually takes till puberty or less, obviously you're faulty. I wonder if it shows :V


Faulty? I'm not the one who can't recognize humor!


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> You can teach a puppy to behave in just months... For humans it takes about 18 years lol... And still there is no guarantee


How to behave? You mean like, don't shit on the rug and roll over? Suck your cock? etc?
I'm pretty sure it doesn't take 18 years for humans to do anything an 18 year old dog can do, actually I think it would take about three years or less. You can't possibly be this stupid.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Faulty? I'm not the one who can't recognize humor!



Oh I did. See?


----------



## Shay Feral (Aug 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> How to behave? You mean like, don't shit on the rug and roll over? Suck your cock? etc?
> I'm pretty sure it doesn't take 18 years for humans to do anything an 18 year old dog can do, actually I think it would take about three years or less. You can't possibly be this stupid.



Well, your living proof of my joke :3


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Well, your living proof of my joke :3



It is pretty funny when you're wrong.

Also I'd be pretty surprised if a dog was able to open its mouth and say or type out the things newf said... so yeah.


----------



## Attaman (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> You can teach a puppy to behave in just months... For humans it takes about 18 years lol... And still there is no guarantee


But in return:  Over 18 years you can teach a human the concepts of basic physics, nature-sciences, multiple languages, a trade for a job, how to read, how to write, and many more things. All together.  The puppy will eventually turn into an adult dog, and curve out in intellectual growth around "Walk on hind legs for treat".  What human age-group tops out around "Walk on hind limbs for a treat?"  Toddler.


----------



## Thatch (Aug 26, 2009)

Attaman said:


> What human age-group tops out around "Walk on hind limbs for a treat?"



The elderly :V


----------



## lilEmber (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Well, your living proof of my joke :3


This is a near-perfect example of beasty mentality, growleth or whatever is the perfect example.


----------



## Fuzzle (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> You can teach a puppy to behave in just months... For humans it takes about 18 years lol... And still there is no guarantee




I've been trying to get all 4 of our dogs to stop barking at anyone who comes down our drive way, even when its ME, for years.


----------



## Wreth (Aug 26, 2009)

To all Zoophiles.Nobody fully undestands how an animals mind works or how bestiality effects them. Therefore there is a possibility that they might be harmed mentally by it. If you care about your animals you won't take that chance. :3


----------



## Nocturne (Aug 26, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> To all Zoophiles.Nobody fully undestands how an animals mind works or how bestiality effects them. Therefore there is a possibility that they might be harmed mentally by it. If you care about your animals you won't take that chance. :3



Probably the best reason.



Shay Feral said:


> Truthfully, I believe you all fuck your animals everyday... But just don't like the stigma...



No u.


----------



## Catte (Aug 26, 2009)

I can't believe this is still going on, you guys are ridiculous, to be honest.

It's turned from a seemingly intellectual discussion, to an all out "Oh you're supporting this side so I'm going to throw shit at you just to discourage your point and make it seem like I know what I'm talking about" bitch fest.

Oh well, not much one can do about that now, I suppose.

Bravo, people.


----------



## Corto (Aug 26, 2009)

Shay Feral said:


> Truthfully, I believe you all fuck your animals everyday... But just don't like the stigma...


Truthfully, I believe that if you post another accusation like that one I'll be on your ass faster than you can say "power abuse". 
This is a fucked up subject, one I would love to forbid on these forums. The least you can you to prevent me from locking up and forgetting about it is keeping the insults to a minimum so as not to give me an excuse.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Corto said:


> Truthfully, I believe that if you post another accusation like that one I'll be on your ass faster than you can say "power abuse".
> This is a fucked up subject, one I would love to forbid on these forums. The least you can you to prevent me from locking up and forgetting about it is keeping the insults to a minimum so as not to give me an excuse.



Why don't you lock it anyway?, these damn threads are getting rather tedious to say the least, they ahve all moved from one thread that has already been locked, to another thread creating yet another fecking flame war!


----------



## Catte (Aug 26, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Why don't you lock it anyway?, these damn threads are getting rather tedious to say the least, they ahve all moved from one thread that has already been locked, to another thread creating yet another fecking flame war!



Most likely because of the fact that an issue unresolved, will stay unresolved, and no matter how many threads you lock, someone will still have something to say for/against this subject.

Really, you can't do anything to stop this, nothing short of bans/suspensions, perhaps.

Eventually it might die out, I suppose.


----------



## Cavy (Aug 26, 2009)

Drakea said:


> I can't believe this is still going on, you guys are ridiculous, to be honest.
> 
> It's turned from a seemingly intellectual discussion, to an all out "Oh you're supporting this side so I'm going to throw shit at you just to discourage your point and make it seem like I know what I'm talking about" bitch fest.
> 
> ...



Its been happening ever since the invention of the internet and online forums. Its sad really. Oh wait, I forgot, this also happens in real life too.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 26, 2009)

Drakea said:


> Most likely because of the fact that an issue unresolved, will stay unresolved, and no matter how many threads you lock, someone will still have something to say for/against this subject.
> 
> Really, you can't do anything to stop this, nothing short of bans/suspensions, perhaps.
> 
> Eventually it might die out, I suppose.



I wouldn't want the threads to be locked if they didn't always turn into a free for all flame war. 

Debate the argument, there is no need for a flame war!........even if it does get funny sometimes >.>  

I have noted that both sides want proof of the opposing argument, yet neither side produces much in the form of evidence (I know Rakuen posted an article in the last thread but i somehow missed it >.<) My theory for the lack of evidence from either side is one or more of the following:

1: Both sides are here just for the flame war.
2: There is not sufficient evidence out there to back either claim up.
3: Both sides are getting a lol out of this.
4: flaming is done deliberately in an attempt to get the thread locked.

Now, What is wrong with keeping a debate civil?


----------



## Corto (Aug 26, 2009)

Drakea said:


> Most likely because of the fact that an issue unresolved, will stay unresolved, and no matter how many threads you lock, someone will still have something to say for/against this subject.
> 
> Really, you can't do anything to stop this, nothing short of bans/suspensions, perhaps.
> 
> Eventually it might die out, I suppose.



Much simpler and less poetic, actually. It's because if I lock this without a good enough excuse, shitheads go "MODS R LOCKING THREADS BAAW BAAAW BAAAW". That said, if I don't actually get an excuse, then I figure the discussion can go on. As long as everyone acts civil and at least keeps the shit-throwing subtle, they can continue to post as much as they like. May this serve as the only warning, though: This is an extremely volatile topic, and as such I'll keep my eye on it. One lil' slip and not only will it get locked, but everyone involved in that circumstance will get, at best, infracted.


----------



## Azure (Aug 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Much simpler and less poetic, actually. It's because if I lock this without a good enough excuse, shitheads go "MODS R LOCKING THREADS BAAW BAAAW BAAAW". That said, if I don't actually get an excuse, then I figure the discussion can go on. As long as everyone acts civil and at least keeps the shit-throwing subtle, they can continue to post as much as they like. May this serve as the only warning, though: This is an extremely volatile topic, and as such I'll keep my eye on it. One lil' slip and not only will it get locked, but everyone involved in that circumstance will get, at best, infracted.


Just lock it man.  People who don't think animal fucking is wrong aren't the sort to listen to a well reasoned argument telling them why the can't stick their dinky doodle into their labs asshole. The ones who are against it are enjoying shitting on stupid people, and the stupid people who are getting shit on enjoy the persecution that's is being willingly funneled their way.  They probably get off on it.  Ruin this big, giant wankfest.  I implore you.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 27, 2009)

OMG, CORTO, SIGN MY LOCKED THREAD AUTOGRAPH BOOK.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 27, 2009)

Corto said:


> Much simpler and less poetic, actually. It's because if I lock this without a good enough excuse, shitheads go "MODS R LOCKING THREADS BAAW BAAAW BAAAW". That said, if I don't actually get an excuse, then I figure the discussion can go on. As long as everyone acts civil and at least keeps the shit-throwing subtle, they can continue to post as much as they like. May this serve as the only warning, though: This is an extremely volatile topic, and as such I'll keep my eye on it. One lil' slip and not only will it get locked, but everyone involved in that circumstance will get, at best, infracted.


inb4lock

I mean, it's all going in circles anyways, and you know it's just going to end with someone getting called a dog fucker.


----------



## Corto (Aug 27, 2009)

Yeah, and possibly by myself.

Screw it, this is going nowhere. Locked, and if anyone needs a reason, then pretend it's because of derailment. And may Korrok have mercy on he who thinks starting a new bestiality thread is a good idea.


----------

