# Animal Abusers



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 25, 2016)

How do you feel about it? Do you think that those who abuse animals in any way, shape or form are the scum of the earth and should be dealt with severely? 

Or do you think that because it is their animal they should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want? 


Personally, I go with the former, fuck those scumbags.


----------



## malibu (Feb 25, 2016)

I find people abusing animals upsetting. Even battery farms rile me up, though. Animals don't deserve to be mistreated simply because they can be viewed as a lower life form.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 25, 2016)

Lock em away, not allowed to own pets in the future. Children too, cause if you can harm an animal you can harm a child


----------



## Endless/Nameless (Feb 25, 2016)

If you abuse an animal, you obviously have no respect for life. Dat's bad. 

But is it any of my business?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Wither (Feb 25, 2016)

You're on a furry forum. Talking about animal abuse. 
...?
Do you just want a circle jerk? Of course people are against animal abuse. 

Regardless, 


Mr. Fox said:


> Do you think that those who abuse animals in any way, shape or form are the scum of the earth and should be dealt with severely?


What do you mean by 'severely'? Are we talking beheading? Jail time? Or fines?
There are laws already in place. Do you think there should be more severe punishments?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 25, 2016)

Wither said:


> You're on a furry forum. Talking about animal abuse.
> ...?
> Do you just want a circle jerk? Of course people are against animal abuse.



Some people, even furries have a complete disregard for the well being of animals. So your argument is nullified and void.



> What do you mean by 'severely'? Are we talking beheading? Jail time? Or fines?
> There are laws already in place. Do you think there should be more severe punishments?



When I say abuse, I mean all forms of it. But how do you feel about animal molester's? What degree of punishment do you think they should receive?

And yes, circlejerking is welcomed, even encouraged. :^)


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Mr. Fox said:


> So your argument is nullified and void. And yes, circlejerking is welcomed, even encouraged. :^)


Ech. 


> When I say abuse, I mean all forms of it. But how do you feel about animal molester's? What degree of punishment do you think they should receive?


Are we going to just ask each other questions? 

Zoophilic behavior is a tricky, touchy subject. On one hand, we have people who treat their, uh, animal partner(?) with extreme care and respect. Far more than your average responsible pet owner. They do not hurt the animal and they do not do anything it doesn't like. 
On the other, we have animal rapists. 

Both people are treated the exact same. They should not. Assuming zoophilia is to remain illegal under any circumstances, the most they should do to the people who have not actually harmed or traumatized the animal should be to take the animal away. Meanwhile, those who hurt the animal should be given the same treatment as any other rapist. 

That all being said, zoophilia ain't my business. Keep it responsible, keep it safe, and keep it behind closed doors and I'm fine.


----------



## LazerMaster5 (Feb 26, 2016)

I have no sympathy for dogfuckers.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> Are we going to just ask each other questions?



Well, y'know, we can always fool around. :v



> That all being said, *zoophilia ain't my business*. Keep it responsible, keep it safe, and keep it behind closed doors and I'm fine.



Even when it's happening to your own animal(s)?

I'm fairly certain I'd punch someone out if they ever tried to get jiggy with my cat.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Mr. Fox said:


> Well, y'know, we can always fool around. :v


No. 


> Even when it's happening to your own animal(s)?
> 
> I'm fairly certain I'd punch someone out if they ever tried to get jiggy with my cat.


You sound like like a homophobe scared of some guy trying to bang you. Gay guys don't generally go for straight people. 

Responsible zoophiliacs do not go around fucking other people's cats. That's not how it works.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> No.
> 
> You sound like like a homophobe scared of some guy trying to bang you. Gay guys don't generally go for straight people.



I'm fairly certain that wanting to fool around is anything but "Homophobic".



> Responsible zoophiliacs do not go around fucking other people's cats. That's not how it works.



And how would you know that, I wonder?

There have been plenty of new reports throughout history about the sexual abuse of other people's animals, so I'm calling bullshit on that one.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Mr. Fox said:


> I'm fairly certain that wanting to fool around is anything but "Homophobic".


Oh my. I wasn't calling you homophobic. You're pretty gay. I was making an analogy. 


> And how would you know that, I wonder?


Because I've been around these people? Sort of. I'll ignore the fact you phrased that as an attack. 


> There have been plenty of new reports throughout history about the sexual abuse of other people's animals, so I'm calling bullshit on that one.


Listen, mate, I'm not saying those cases don't exist. Gays hitting on straights happen too. My point is that they're a small minority. Very small. 

All I'm trying to say is those who did not harm their pets mentally or physically shouldn't be punished as if they did. That is all.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> Oh my. I wasn't calling you homophobic. You're pretty gay. I was making an analogy.



You sure about that? Seemed a little out of context.



> Because I've been around these people? Sort of. I'll ignore the fact you phrased that as an attack.



Why on Earth would you want to be around those sort of people? 

And no, it was a legit question.



> Listen, mate



That's Mr. Fox to you.



> I'm not saying those cases don't exist. Gays hitting on straights happen too. My point is that they're a small minority. Very small.
> 
> All I'm trying to say is those who did not harm their pets mentally or physically shouldn't be punished as if they did. That is all.



Won't argue with that. But, animal abuse laws should be more strict.


----------



## Somnium (Feb 26, 2016)

You don't fight fire with fire.

Hey and you ain't taking my beautiful dog away!


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 26, 2016)

Sex with animals is animal abuse.
Sex with children is child abuse.
Even if the child "consents" or "likes it". 
Animals have the mentality of a child.

OPINION GO GO GO GO GO


----------



## Nymlus (Feb 26, 2016)

Zrcalo said:


> Sex with animals is animal abuse.
> Sex with children is child abuse.
> Even if the child "consents" or "likes it".
> Animals have the mentality of a child.
> ...


But you don't castrate or eat children, do you? Has anyone ever cared to ask an animal for their consent before cutting off their balls or turning them into a hamburger?


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 26, 2016)

Nymlus said:


> But you don't castrate or eat children, do you? Has anyone ever cared to ask an animal for their consent before cutting off their balls or turning them into a hamburger?



that much is true.
then again, we do circumcision.. so... thats literal sexual violation and mutilation to a minor.

I guess the real question is.... 
should we treat animals like children, and should we treat children like humans?


----------



## Nymlus (Feb 26, 2016)

Yeah, I strongly oppose circumcision of infants and consider it to be mutilation as well. But still, it's less invasive than what we do to animals. If someone castrated their child because they didn't want him to have kids then it would be a big news story and people would be outraged.

I think laws that have to do with the treatment of animals are largely arbitrary and based on the feelings of humans. For example, a lot of people get sad if they see a cat or dog being killed. But most people don't care if a cow is killed and turned into meat. As long as it doesn't happen where they can see it, of course.

If someone really thought that all sexual interaction between humans and animals is immoral, they would try to ban artificial insemination as well. Farmers stick their whole arm into the cow's pussy to put bull semen inside of them. Using the same logic, that is also animal abuse. But it's allowed because humans benefit from it. Castration is also allowed because humans benefit from it. All these things are based on what we need and what we want, not what the animal needs or wants.


----------



## Xevvy (Feb 26, 2016)

Wholeheartedly against it. They're living beings, just like we are. They can feel pain, they can know fear and sadness and it's not our "right" as human beings to freely inflict those things upon them. Live and let live, I say. I know animals kill one another, for food or in self defense, but for them there's often not a choice. It's not typically a necessity for human beings, so I believe we should be avoiding it where possible. 

Since it's been raised in the thread already, circumcision: I don't believe parents have the right to make permanent modifications to their children - any changes should be up to the individual once they're at a reasonable age to make a responsible choice. If you're old enough, mature enough and decide that's what you want - absolutely fine. But doing that to someone against their will? Strongly oppose.


----------



## stablercake (Feb 26, 2016)

w/r/t/ animal abuse: don't be a dick should apply to all situations but especially don't be a dick to something that can't or won't defend itself like seriously. If you gotta kill it to feed someone or put an animal out of misery, be quick.

w/r/t circumcision: It's not just a body mod that the child can't choose, it's literally hurting the child. A child's foreskin shouldn't be separated from the penis because it's FUSED with it until a certain age (did you wonder why the whole upper shaft and head of a circumcized dude's cock was a lot redder and not just a ring around where they cut?) and pretty much guarantees a relatively large open wound right next to poop for a certain amount of time. Kids DIE from circumcision complications. It's barbaric and cruel and some asshole named Kellogg thought it was a great idea because it would make boys less likely to masturbate but ofc in reality he just sort of boosted the lube and lotion profits.

I HAVE CAPITAL O OPINIONS ABOUT CIRCUMCISION OK


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Mr. Fox said:


> Why on Earth would you want to be around those sort of people?


It's not like i seek them out? They're just people.


> And no, it was a legit question.


Your question was still accusing. And so was the one above it.


> That's Mr. Fox to you.


I appreciate your attempts at humour, even if they don't land.


> Won't argue with that.


Right then. Good ^^.


As for the circumcision conversation? Circumcision is bad, stop doing it :c
It should be the kids choice when they're older.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2016)

Zrcalo said:


> that much is true.
> then again, *we do circumcision*.. so... thats literal sexual violation and mutilation to a minor.
> 
> I guess the real question is....
> should we treat animals like children, and should we treat children like humans?



We don't in my country. I was horrified to discover Americans do this. 

Anyway, obviously comparisons of animals with children are not apt, and people must find different justification in order to decide how to treat animals ethically.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Feb 26, 2016)

Oh dang here comes the zoophilia...

Furries are notorious for their underground support of such an act.

Its not safe to be banging dogs and children, tbh. Just no. 

Sex is between two consenting adult individuals of the same sentience. Period.


----------



## perkele (Feb 26, 2016)

I don't like it, but animals abuse each other all the time, so I don't think about it much.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2016)

perkele said:


> I don't like it, but animals abuse each other all the time, so I don't think about it much.



While nature is red in tooth and claw I think that we should hold ourselves to some higher standard than that and hence at least endeavour to avoid causing other animals wanton suffering.



WolfNightV4X1 said:


> Oh dang here comes the zoophilia...
> 
> Furries are notorious for their underground support of such an act.
> 
> ...



I really don't think many furries tacitly support molesting animals. 

It's interesting that you describe sex as having to take place between two animals with the 'same sentience'. [Plenty of examples of sex in the animal kingdom will fail to occur only between two individuals, for example]
This seems like an unnecessarily philosophical and convoluted criticism of animal molestation. 

I think it's easier to say that it's unfair to subject a creature to wanton interference and that it's dangerous and gross because of the risk of catching horrible animal diseases.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Feb 26, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> While nature is red in tooth and claw I think that we should hold ourselves to some higher standard than that and hence at least endeavour to avoid causing other animals wanton suffering.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I may have also used the word two but I had forgotten polygamy and the like are a thing, my example was narrow now that you mention it

Rape is also prevalent in the animal kingdom as well, that doesnt mean its generally okay for humans to rape as well because its considered natural. It may be a natural occurrence but that doesnt make it right, and humans would likely have a better standard.

Also have to agree the contact poses serious risk of disease and thats just not good either


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 26, 2016)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> I may have also used the word two but I had forgotten polygamy and the like are a thing.
> 
> Rape is also prevalent in the animal kingdom as well, that doesnt mean its generally okay for humans to rape as well because its considered natural. It may be a natural occurrence but that doesnt make it right.
> 
> Also have to agree the contact poses serious risk of disease and thats just not good either



Yeah, I agree that of course what goes on in the animal kingdom isn't a good model for human behaviour. I thought that was implied by my comment that 'nature is red in tooth and claw, but we should hold ourselves to a better standard'.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> I think it's easier to say that it's unfair to subject a creature to wanton interference and that it's dangerous and gross because of the risk of catching horrible animal diseases.


This is fair. It's a solid risk and reason to avoid human interspecies sex.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2016)

Nymlus said:


> If someone really thought that all sexual interaction between humans and animals is immoral, they would try to ban artificial insemination as well. Farmers stick their whole arm into the cow's pussy to put bull semen inside of them. Using the same logic, that is also animal abuse. But it's allowed because humans benefit from it. Castration is also allowed because humans benefit from it. All these things are based on what we need and what we want, not what the animal needs or wants.


...No....
Artificial insemination is done for two reasons: the safety of the animals, and for convenience.
A bull is aggressive and weighs a lot, they can easily crush a female cow underneath them, so AI is the safer option. The actual insemination done to animals is done via syringe attached to a long, thin, plastic tube.


----------



## Nymlus (Feb 26, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> The actual insemination done to animals is done via syringe attached to a long, thin, plastic tube.


Hm... it appears you are right. I went to look for pictures on Google, and found that the arm is not inserted into the cow's vagina. It is actually inserted into her anus: Artificial insemination (AI) in the cow requires physically facilitating the delivery of collected semen through the cervix to the uterus. | APIs - Prostaglandins with a Purpose | Article Library || Cayman Chemical | Supplier

But I don't see how that makes it better. You'd still be putting your limbs deep inside of an animal who had little say in the matter. So, it follows that artificial insemination is just as bad as bestiality, and anyone who opposes bestiality should logically condemn this practice as well.

As for disease... the funny thing about that is there are actually far more diseases you can catch from another human than from an animal. The majority of sexually transmitted disease attacks humans specifically and spreads within our species. So if your only concern is the risk of disease, it is actually less dangerous for you to have sex with an animal than a human. Assuming that in both cases you were having unprotected sex, of course.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2016)

Nymlus said:


> Hm... it appears you are right. I went to look for pictures on Google, and found that the arm is not inserted into the cow's vagina. It is actually inserted into her anus: Artificial insemination (AI) in the cow requires physically facilitating the delivery of collected semen through the cervix to the uterus. | APIs - Prostaglandins with a Purpose | Article Library || Cayman Chemical | Supplier
> 
> But I don't see how that makes it better. You'd still be putting your limbs deep inside of an animal who had little say in the matter. So, it follows that artificial insemination is just as bad as bestiality, and anyone who opposes bestiality should logically condemn this practice as well.
> 
> As for disease... the funny thing about that is there are actually far more diseases you can catch from another human than from an animal. The majority of sexually transmitted disease attacks humans specifically and spreads within our species. So if your only concern is the risk of disease, it is actually less dangerous for you to have sex with an animal than a human. Assuming that in both cases you were having unprotected sex, of course.



You clearly haven't read far into it, otherwise you'd understand that the cow is anesthetized during the procedure and is large enough for the arm to not do any harm.  A licensed veterinarian knows what they're doing and is doing the absolute minimum harm they can, and are doing it for the benefit of the animal. If the vet going through all of this work for the benefit of the animal is considered animal abuse, so should be any other scenario where an animal has it's consent ignored for it's own safety, such as: nail trimmings, baths, vaccinations, vet visits, grooming, surgery.
Natural breeding is dangerous, there's no way around that truth, so AI is the logical, humane way of avoiding injury to the animals.

I wasn't the one who brought up zoonotic diseases, but if you want to get on that train we should discuss the pH levels of a woman's vagina and how bacterial infections can be gained or caught from sex with animals (there's at least one case of a woman dying from this, she was fucking dogs), or how unclean an asshole is. Speaking entirely about the human being on the receiving end, of course.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> Zoophilic behavior is a tricky, touchy subject. On one hand, we have people who treat their, uh, animal partner(?) with extreme care and respect. Far more than your average responsible pet owner. They do not hurt the animal and they do not do anything it doesn't like.
> On the other, we have animal rapists.
> 
> Both people are treated the exact same. They should not. Assuming zoophilia is to remain illegal under any circumstances, the most they should do to the people who have not actually harmed or traumatized the animal should be to take the animal away. Meanwhile, those who hurt the animal should be given the same treatment as any other rapist.
> ...



Oh my fuck. WOW.

I wasn't going to register here again, but now I gotta.

There isn't any way to argue the fact, if you literally screw the pooch, you're fucked in the head. Plain and simple, cut and dried.

How could you possibly be defending that shit... God damn.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

rekcerW said:


> Oh my fuck. WOW.
> 
> I wasn't going to register here again, but now I gotta.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your opinion. It was worth the effort of registration. You've truly defeated me. I have no argument.


----------



## rekcerW (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> Thanks for your opinion. It was worth the effort of registration. You've truly defeated me. I have no argument.


It's funny, because you actually think that there's a way to justify diddling an animal...


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

rekcerW said:


> It's funny, because you actually think that there's a way to justify diddling an animal...


Whatever I have to say to make you go away. I prefer people who support their opinions and beliefs, not just people who flaunt them and act infallible. 
So, you win. I concede.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> Whatever I have to say to make you go away. I prefer people who support their opinions and beliefs, not just people who flaunt them and act infallible.
> So, you win. I concede.


Your argument is flawed because it's based on "I know someone who knows someone". I don't care if your bff doesn't hold his dog down and fuck it in the ass, by having sex with animals you are harming them. I've known many zoophiles who claim to "love" them, who abuse them. I can't namedrop in here but there was one in the news who fawned over his dogs, got art commissioned of them, and when adopting a new dog (he put down his dogs because his  female got pyometra... from being fucked) he had "Just Married" on the back of his car.

Don't tell me for a single second that "some love their animals and don't harm them".


----------



## Endless/Nameless (Feb 26, 2016)

#BestThreadEva


----------



## stablercake (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> Whatever I have to say to make you go away. I prefer people who support their opinions and beliefs, not just people who flaunt them and act infallible.
> So, you win. I concede.



I think their point is that they don't need to support their opinions because it's such a black and white issue for them, to them it's like saying murder is not ok no matter what. TBH idk how to feel about zoophilia, if I'm being honest I'm not interested in it and I'm against it because ofc animals can't intelligently consent to it even if they seem "into it" (because I've been around some in tact animals and shit they get weird), but idk, I've heard points that have made me question the black-and-white-ness of my beliefs of others' interests.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> Your argument is flawed because it's based on "I know someone who knows someone". I don't care if your bff doesn't hold his dog down and fuck it in the ass, by having sex with animals you are harming them. I've known many zoophiles who claim to "love" them, who abuse them. I can't namedrop in here but there was one in the news who fawned over his dogs, got art commissioned of them, and when adopting a new dog (he put down his dogs because his  female got pyometra... from being fucked) he had "Just Married" on the back of his car.
> 
> Don't tell me for a single second that "some love their animals and don't harm them".


My whole point is if they did not hurt the animal in any way then they should have less punishment. If they hurt the animal, that is immediately void. In you example, they hurt the animal, as you claim. Therefore, they do not get any less punishment. 
We're also limiting this to dogs and cats. Small animals that you could possibly be completely incapable of having intercourse without hurting them due to their size. There are bigger animals that are far more intelligent and capable of showing signs of consent. Dolphins for example. 


stablercake said:


> I think their point is that they don't need to support their opinions because it's such a black and white issue for them, to them it's like saying murder is not ok no matter what. TBH idk how to feel about zoophilia, if I'm being honest I'm not interested in it and I'm against it because ofc animals can't intelligently consent to it even if they seem "into it" (because I've been around some in tact animals and shit they get weird), but idk, I've heard points that have made me question the black-and-white-ness of my beliefs of others' interests.


I know exactly what their point is. However, I can't possibly make any response to it. I am wrong no matter what I say in that scenario. I despise people who aren't even the slightest bit open-minded and come out swinging. 

I'm not trying to say it should accepted. I'm solely saying that punishments, if there are to be some, should fluctuate based on damage done. If none happened, minimal punishment should be enacted. Take away the animal (or remove the person from care of the animal), prevent them from getting a new one. Whereas with those who have hurt the animal should get more severe punishments. Pay medical, possibly jail time.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> My whole point is if they did not hurt the animal in any way then they should have less punishment. If they hurt the animal, that is immediately void. In you example, they hurt the animal, as you claim. Therefore, they do not get any less punishment.
> We're also limiting this to dogs and cats. Small animals that you could possibly be completely incapable of having intercourse without hurting them due to their size.


See... you consider abuse/hurting to be causing physical damage to the animal (tearing, bleeding, etc). Animals can be harmed by sexual intercourse without being hurt in this way.



Wither said:


> There are bigger animals that are far more intelligent and capable of showing signs of consent. Dolphins for example.


Dolphins pair up and form strong bonds with their partners. A few have been known to kill themselves by ramming into the side of the tank or starving themselves after the animal fucker leaves/gets fired from his job at SeaWorld or whatever. Got this straight from an autobiography written by a dolphinfucking zoophile. I can't remember what the book/site was called, though.

I know exactly what their point is. However, I can't possibly make any response to it. I am wrong no matter what I say in that scenario. I despise people who aren't even the slightest bit open-minded and come out swinging.



Wither said:


> If none happened, minimal punishment should be enacted. Take away the animal (or remove the person from care of the animal), prevent them from getting a new one. Whereas with those who have hurt the animal should get more severe punishments. Pay medical, possibly jail time.


So basically, you're saying that unless the animal is harmed severely, there should be no real punishment for having se with an animal otherwise..

???
It's like you haven't been listening to us talk about humans being on the receiving end being dangerous for animals.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> So basically, you're saying that unless the animal is harmed severely, there should be no real punishment for having se with an animal otherwise..
> 
> ???
> It's like you haven't been listening to us talk about humans being on the receiving end being dangerous for animals.


I mean, a disease is harmful. Therefore it fits under 'harm'.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> I mean, a disease is harmful. Therefore it fits under 'harm'.


Pyometra is a potentially lethal uterine infection in female dogs, often caused by fucking them. (Artificial pregnancies can cause them as well) Zoos seem to give their dogs pyo quote a bit!

I've also heard stories about zoos having sex with male dogs, and noticing that their dog is ejaculating blood.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> Pyometra is a potentially lethal uterine infection in female dogs, often caused by fucking them. (Artificial pregnancies can cause them as well) Zoos seem to give their dogs pyo quote a bit!
> 
> I've also heard stories about zoos having sex with male dogs, and noticing that their dog is ejaculating blood.


I can't tell if you're still disagreeing with my stance or are just adding information. If it's the former, I'll accept your opinion now that I've hopefully fully cleared up mine. We don't have to agree, it's cool. If it's just the latter, go ahead and continue. I personally know this stuff, but it's still interesting information to share to those who don't.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> I can't tell if you're still disagreeing with my stance or are just adding information. If it's the former, I'll accept your opinion now that I've hopefully fully cleared up mine. We don't have to agree, it's cool. If it's just the latter, go ahead and continue. I personally know this stuff, but it's still interesting information to share to those who don't.


I'm disagreeing with your stance, because I believe abuse can be done no matter what the case is. If you have sex with an animal, you are abusing that animal and inherently putting that animal at risk of infections and injuries.


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> I'm disagreeing with your stance, because I believe abuse can be done no matter what the case is. If you have sex with an animal, you are abusing that animal and inherently putting that animal at risk of infections and injuries.


I'm not arguing the abuse. I'm arguing the punishments. You seem a bit stuck there, mate. It's alright, though, I get your point. Like I said, you don't have to agree.

And by chance all you're doing is trying to convince me not to fuck an animal, you need not worry. You can drop that and sleep easy, okay?


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 26, 2016)

Wither said:


> I'm not arguing the abuse. I'm arguing the punishments.


The issue I have with this is that you keep insisting that people are punished based on the "severity" of the crime. What would a punishment be, in your opinion, if a woman were to have sex with a male dog?


----------



## Wither (Feb 26, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> The issue I have with this is that you keep insisting that people are punished based on the "severity" of the crime. What would a punishment be, in your opinion, if a woman were to have sex with a male dog?


You're really beating that dead horse. 
It depends. Did the dog get harmed? Did it contract a disease? No? Take it away. Yes? More severe punishment.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 27, 2016)

Wither said:


> You're really beating that dead horse.
> It depends. Did the dog get harmed? Did it contract a disease? No? Take it away. Yes? More severe punishment.


You're implying that there are instances of having sex with animals that are not harmful.


----------



## Wither (Feb 27, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> You're implying that there are instances of having sex with animals that are not harmful.


I am, yes. I'm not changing my stance, and you're not either. Have the last word if you please, but I've said what I've wanted to say.


----------



## stablercake (Feb 27, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> You're implying that there are instances of having sex with animals that are not harmful.


I mean taking the animal away is still punishment and an acknowledgement that harm has been done so I understand Wither in their stance a little bit.

However, my own stance is that punishment should be across the board based on what happened, if a woman gets fucked by a male dog then what ACTUALLY happened is irrelevant and they should be charged by worst-case-scenario. They COULD have harmed the dog in some way more than just mental and therefore should be charged in a way that reflects their irresponsibility and plus should be charged for harming the dog mentally on top of that. Just because someone got lucky and didn't physically maim or transmit some disease to an animal doesn't mean they should get less severe punishment.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Feb 27, 2016)

Saying "all animal abuse is the worst thing that could ever happen and should be punishable as harshly as humanly possible" (exaggerating somewhat for effect, yes) doesn't do it for me, personally. Should people abuse animals? No. Obviously not. Abusing anyone is undesirable and bad. 

But "abuse" is not black and white. Sometimes people are misinformed. I don't think punishing them is going to help them more than educating them. I knew someone who's... kinda gullible, to be honest, who was told that cats' claws only need to be trimmed if you start trimming them. She had two indoor cats, and I found out about this situation when the cats were something like 4-6 months. At that point the claws were too long, but not dangerously so. I gave her a horror story or two about what severely overgrown claws can do, clipped the claws for her, and she took the lesson to heart. Same thing when I found her longhair muttcat had mats - I showed her the mats, helped cut them out, and told her what the biggest risk areas to check are and what can happen if mats sit in for too long. This lady has a pretty strained economy, and being issued a fine would've only harmed her and her children, when all she was really guilty of was listening to the wrong people or not realizing that tangles in areas she didn't really touch much (e.g. the cat's armpits) could actually harm the cat. After that point they kept the most susceptible areas clipped, and cat didn't have many problems. 

Sometimes isolated behavior we see can appear harsh, but depends a lot on the relationship between the animal and owner. I would be harsher on my horse for misbehaving than on some of our boards, because both the horse and I knew that he was quite aware of what was appropriate behavior, and he was just choosing to be a butt about it. There's also all the stories of e.g. horses who've foundered being kept in very small, grassless paddocks, and passers-by being all up in arms about "the poor horse". When the reality is that the poor horse could well cause itself irreversible or fatal damage if let roam a large, rich, grassy field.

So I at least think intent and knowledge are important factors in determining both whether something is abuse, and how severe that abuse should be considered. (An interesting tidbit regarding cultural differences in abuse-or-not: here spanking your children is illegal.) Our understanding of animal behavior, health, and psychology keeps evolving, and I don't think it's fair to call people who e.g. would use bloodletting to try to cure their sick livestock a couple of hundred years ago abusive, if that was their best understanding of medicine at the time. Obviously they were taking pains to take the best care of their animal they knew how. Similarly, the dog training methods that were considered standard 30-40 years ago are now being questioned more and more, in favor of "softer", more directly reward-based methods. Also people who handle animals professionally (trainers or veterinarians, for instance) should face harsher sentences if found guilty of animal abuse, because they're in a position of power /authority not only in relation to the animal but also its owners. 

Now, I'm all for severe punishment of people who do things that can only reasonably considered to be torture of an animal - not talking shock collars (though please don't), but the horror stories of people coming into paddocks at night and cutting the horses/livestock, people setting wild animals or free-roaming small pets on fire, or mutilating them. There is no way a sane person would not realize that what they are doing in such a situation is purely harmful. I would also love to see more of an effort to punish people for animal abandonment (and, possibly controversially, this includes "animal rights activists" who release farmed fur stock into the wild - the animal is more or less guaranteed a nasty death out there just the same as an abandoned pet, because it knows fuck-all about being a wild animal and may not even be in its natural climate/environment), as it ought to be obvious if you stop and think that up and leaving something you've cared for to fend for itself is going to _at best_ result in some emotional trauma for the animal.

Overall, though, a mixture of intent and actual harm done seems like the fairest things to judge any abuse (whether of humans or animals) by to me. 

I don't personally agree with making bestiality illegal for its own sake - if the actions in question are harmful to the animals, they should fall under abuse laws, and if they aren't, then making them illegal for the sake of it is just silly. (I am not interested in debating whether such actions are inherently harmful, etc. All I'm saying is that having a separate, specific law for it seems ridiculous to me.)


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Feb 27, 2016)

I leave this thread for a few days and now everyone is talking about animal circumcision. That's a new one.


----------



## stablercake (Feb 27, 2016)

Mr. Fox said:


> I leave this thread for a few days and now everyone is talking about animal circumcision. That's a new one.


Thanks for that I pictured a circumcised dog and what the fuck that's the weirdest grossest thing


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 27, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> ...No....
> Artificial insemination is done for two reasons: the safety of the animals, and for convenience.
> A bull is aggressive and weighs a lot, they can easily crush a female cow underneath them, so AI is the safer option. The actual insemination done to animals is done via syringe attached to a long, thin, plastic tube.



He does have a point that the treatment of animals is often so barbaric, for convenience, including practicses such as gelding, that any argument which opposes animal molestation on the grounds of animal welfare usually comes from a convoluted or even hypocritical perspective.

Having a hypocritical perspective doesn't mean that these arguments are wrong, of course, and there is sufficient reason to forbid the molestation of animals even if their welfare is not considered at all.


Nymlus said:


> Hm... it appears you are right. I went to look for pictures on Google, and found that the arm is not inserted into the cow's vagina. It is actually inserted into her anus: Artificial insemination (AI) in the cow requires physically facilitating the delivery of collected semen through the cervix to the uterus. | APIs - Prostaglandins with a Purpose | Article Library || Cayman Chemical | Supplier
> 
> But I don't see how that makes it better. You'd still be putting your limbs deep inside of an animal who had little say in the matter. So, it follows that artificial insemination is just as bad as bestiality, and anyone who opposes bestiality should logically condemn this practice as well.
> 
> As for disease... the funny thing about that is there are actually far more diseases you can catch from another human than from an animal. The majority of sexually transmitted disease attacks humans specifically and spreads within our species. So if your only concern is the risk of disease, it is actually less dangerous for you to have sex with an animal than a human. Assuming that in both cases you were having unprotected sex, of course.



This claim about disease is not quite right. Diseases which cross between species tend to be the most dangerous ones. 

Diseases such as the bubonic plague, measles, ebola, mers and influenza all cross between human and animal hosts. 

The reason that diseases which can migrate host are so dangerous is because when a disease is confined to one species killing the host is usually a bad move, because it curtails the disease's ability to spread itself, hence diseases slowly become less deadly over many generations [as is observed to be the case in syphilis]. If a disease is transferred to a new host species, then its adaptive behaviour which aims to avoid killing the host is no longer functional. 

case in point, the Simian version of HIV which infects some monkeys doesn't kill them. The Human version may be descended from the simian version, and could have been transferred to humans in the sloppy preparation of bush meet in central Africa.


----------



## LazerMaster5 (Feb 27, 2016)

The fact that some of you guys are trying to justify fucking animals makes me very disappointed. Come on guys, have you no respect for nature? Harming animals is NOT cool.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 27, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> He does have a point that the treatment of animals is often so barbaric, for convenience, including practicses such as gelding, that any argument which opposes animal molestation on the grounds of animal welfare usually comes from a convoluted or even hypocritical perspective.


Gelding, although horribly disgusting, is a beneficial practice for both the stallion, it's herd, and it's handlers. Stallions are incredibly aggressive and horses can (and do) kill people if a mare in heat gets between them. They will fight, kick, and bite eachother mercilessly to get to a mare, and are generally neurotic messes.
There's a reason horses are gelded before they're ridden, that reason is because they're uncontrollable.

(Stallion fighting is an actual bloodsport, btw)


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> Gelding, although horribly disgusting, is a beneficial practice for both the stallion, it's herd, and it's handlers. Stallions are incredibly aggressive and horses can (and do) kill people if a mare in heat gets between them. They will fight, kick, and bite eachother mercilessly to get to a mare, and are generally neurotic messes.
> There's a reason horses are gelded before they're ridden, that reason is because they're uncontrollable.
> 
> (Stallion fighting is an actual bloodsport, btw)



...People doing barbaric things for convenience was rather my point; the grand some of people involved in handling livestock clearly are not preoccupied with the animal's point of view. 

Hence criticisms of animal molestation should not be based on the animal's point of view; plenty of people don't seem to care about that. [although I do].


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> ...People doing barbaric things for convenience was rather my point;


"Convenience"
It's like you haven't read before replying.




Fallowfox said:


> the grand some of people involved in handling livestock clearly are not preoccupied with the animal's point of view.


Yeah.... Well... That's just like.. Your opinion, man


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> "Convenience"
> It's like you haven't read before replying.
> 
> 
> ...



I did read it; aggressive stallions would be an inconvenience for most livestock handlers. I don't really care if you are complaining because you don't think 'convenience' is a strong enough word, because that wasn't the point of the argument. 
The point was that the animal's point of view is dispensed with.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> I did read it; aggressive stallions would be an inconvenience for most livestock handlers. I don't really care if you are complaining because you don't think 'convenience' is a strong enough word, because that wasn't the point of the argument.
> The point was that the animal's point of view is dispensed with.


If you'd read what I wrote, you'd understand that it's done for the benefit of the animal.
Stallions will kill and hurt each other, and yet you only focus on how dangerous they are to people?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> If you'd read what I wrote, you'd understand that it's done for the benefit of the animal.
> Stallions will kill and hurt each other, and yet you only focus on how dangerous they are to people?



Ultimately it is done for human benefit yes, because injuries from fighting make it difficult to sell or keep the creature, which is usually the reason somebody owns it in the first place. 

We need a different justification for frowning on animal molestation than considering the animal's feelings and suffering, because plenty of activities which subject animals to greater degrees of suffering are rationalised and considered acceptable. 

That's fine though, because, as has already been discussed in this thread, there is sufficient justification which isn't related to the creature's feelings.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Ultimately it is done for human benefit yes, because injuries from fighting make it difficult to sell or keep the creature, which is usually the reason somebody owns it in the first place.


That's a bit of a reach.

Just curious, do you know why gelding is done the way it's done?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> That's a bit of a reach.
> 
> Just curious, do you know why gelding is done the way it's done?



I think you'll have to be more specific with 'the way it is done'.

One of my friends, with dual American and British citizenship, said that when she visited America she observed horses having their legs bound to stocks, before their testicles were severed and they went 'ape shit'.
I doubt this is representative though.

I know comparatively little about how one goes about parting a stallion and its testicles; why would I?

I suspect this is an irrelevant tangent.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> I think you'll have to be more specific with 'the way it is done'.
> 
> One of my friends, with dual American and British citizenship, said that when she visited America she observed horses having their legs bound to stocks, before their testicles were severed and they went 'ape shit'.
> I doubt this is representative though.
> ...


That's what I'm referring to
Do you know why it's done that way?


I know about this because I like to learn. Didn't know what a "gelding" was when I was younger so I looked it up. Why not take the time to educate yourself on things like this? There's no shame in it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> That's what I'm referring to
> Do you know why it's done that way?
> 
> 
> I know about this because I like to learn. Didn't know what a "gelding" was when I was younger so I looked it up. Why not take the time to educate yourself on things like this? There's no shame in it.



How does this relate to my argument, Volkodav? 

(I suspect you looked up chopping off horse bits because you seem...rather obsessed with looking up things about forcing animals to fight eachother and doing nasty things to animals in general, rather than because you wanted to be 'educated' but I digress.)


----------



## Birchnutter (Feb 28, 2016)

On the topic of zoophilia, if we're going by the definition which is an attraction to animals then it is harmless in itself. As long as it remains a fantasy then I don't see an issue.

Bestiality though, makes you a sick fuck.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> How does this relate to my argument, Volkodav?
> 
> (I suspect you looked up chopping off horse bits because you seem...rather obsessed with looking up things about forcing animals to fight eachother and doing nasty things to animals in general, rather than because you wanted to be 'educated' but I digress.)


Nice ad hominem


My point is that gelding is done the way it is (local anesthetic instead of putting the horse fully under) because the risk of the latter leading to death is high, simply because it's hard to dose an animal as large as a horse and not kill it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> Nice ad hominem
> 
> 
> My point is that gelding is done the way it is (local anesthetic instead of putting the horse fully under) because the risk of the latter leading to death is high, simply because it's hard to dose an animal as large as a horse and not kill it.



How does this relate to the discussion?

The point, that people do pretty nasty things to animals on industrial scales so their suffering is of secondary or even negligible importance to a lot of people, remains. 
I'm not sure why you don't just say 'yeah I agree with that' and move on, instead of finding excuses to discuss horse-fighting and gelding procedures.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> How does this relate to the discussion?
> 
> The point, that people do pretty nasty things to animals on industrial scales so their suffering is of secondary or even negligible importance to a lot of people, remains.
> I'm not sure why you don't just say 'yeah I agree with that' and move on, instead of finding excuses to discuss horse-fighting and gelding procedures.


The point is that we do things like this to animals and it's considered acceptable because it's done for the benefit of the animal.

The discussion of horses was brought up because they're a good example of when something gross/mean (gelding) is done for the benefit of the animal.

Why am I having to hold your hand through this?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> The point is that we do things like this to animals and it's considered acceptable because it's done for the benefit of the animal.
> 
> The discussion of horses was brought up because they're a good example of when something gross/mean (gelding) is done for the benefit of the animal.
> 
> Why am I having to hold your hand through this?



I don't think killing and eating animals is really for their benefit, to be honest, or that keeping horses and gelding them in order to make them manageable is for 'their benefit' it's something people do in order to domesticate beasts of burden, not something done out of gushy concerns for how the animal feels. 

Hence gushy arguments like 'that poor animal, it doesn't want to be molested' are pretty irrelevant when people are going around chopping off animal's testicles, or shooting them for sport. 
Personally I think _all_ of those things are deplorable, and you know, that's maybe one reason why I wouldn't want to own a horse in the first place, or go shooting at grouse for amusement. 

But since so many people are fine with being really rather nasty to animals in so many other situations, it's weird when they expect this to be a definitive argument when they're arguing against animal molestation. I agree with that argument, but many of them are massive hypocrites.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Clearly you haven't actually read what I've said and you're just going to repeat what you believe without showing that you've learned anything from our talks.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> Clearly you haven't actually read what I've said and you're just going to repeat what you believe without showing that you've learned anything from our talks.



Let me tell you, even though it astonishes you that people don't automatically agree with you just because they read what you type online, yeah I read your content, often several times so that I could refer to different parts of your argument. 

But I'm so sorry for you that you feel that you've failed in your obligation to educate me; it must be frustrating for superior intellects such as yourself to be surrounded by dullards like me. :V


----------



## Somnium (Feb 28, 2016)

Guys, calm down! Castration is just a part of animal domestication process. Aggression is not necessary bad and it's actually needed in the wild.

But what I'll never understand is why letting a male dog to have fun with his owner is considered animal abuse.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Guys, calm down! Castration is just a part of animal domestication process. Aggression is not necessary bad and it's actually needed in the wild.
> 
> But what I'll never understand is why letting a male dog to have fun with his owner is considered animal abuse.



I'm willing to admit that the reason most of us think this is because it's taboo. 

This is revealed by the frequency of extremely odd justifications I see, which are patently wrong, such as 'dogs have minds like children, so it's like abusing a child'. These justifications are so hypocritical, incoherent and simply factually wrong that it's pretty clear that the people espousing them are starting from the position 'I know this is wrong' and finding a reason to justify it, rather than starting with reasons and seeing which conclusion they lead to. 

I think there are good justifications to view it as wrong, such as the risk of transmission of disease between animals and humans...but you know, I would still feel it was wrong even if all those issues didn't exist, so I'm guilty of  the 'it's taboo' logic to some extent too.


----------



## Somnium (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm willing to admit that the reason most of us think this is because it's taboo.
> 
> This is revealed by the frequency of extremely odd justifications I see, which are patently wrong, such as 'dogs have minds like children, so it's like abusing a child'. These justifications are so hypocritical, incoherent and simply factually wrong that it's pretty clear that the people espousing them are starting from the position 'I know this is wrong' and finding a reason to justify it, rather than starting with reasons and seeing which conclusion they lead to.
> 
> I think there are good justifications to view it as wrong, such as the risk of transmission of disease between animals and humans...but you know, I would still feel it was wrong even if all those issues didn't exist, so I'm guilty of  the 'it's taboo' logic to some extent too.



Well of course animal loving is considered taboo and many would rather chose to not know that someone practices it as they would love to be unaware of someone's certain fetishes, because they can be very disturbing. But the whole difference is you don't go to jail just for having a weird sexual attraction even if it's taboo. And also when a person gets caught his/her pet (or should I say partner?) is taken away, gets his balls cut off and is thrown to a cold cage supposedly for his own good.

Diseases should not be a bigger issue than it is between humans. Maybe even smaller, because some STDs does not effect both species. In any case safe "love" is a way to go.


----------



## stablercake (Feb 28, 2016)

I think it's kind of amazing that there was so much time spent on the cruelty of American gelding in this thread when someone said they at least give local anesthetic whereas from what little research I've done, steering a bull does not really care about the animals discomfort and only cares about getting the damn nuts off unless you're using a rubber band method which despite the discomfort, the guide I read states the discomfort and maggot risk (barf) is lower with that method.

I'm not playing ball-removal Olympics im just saying if we want to look at a practice where the animals discomfort is pretty low on the list of concerns, steering a bull seems like a great example. 

Not that I'm condemning either practice, I feel like having an unpredictable and dangerous domestic animal would be at best inconvenient (pardon my word usage) and at worst actively harmful to the in tact animal and the animals around it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 28, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Well of course animal loving is considered taboo and many would rather chose to not know that someone practices it as they would love to be unaware of someone's certain fetishes, because they can be very disturbing. But the whole difference is you don't go to jail just for having a weird sexual attraction even if it's taboo. And also when a person gets caught his/her pet (or should I say partner?) is taken away, gets his balls cut off and is thrown to a cold cage supposedly for his own good.
> 
> Diseases should not be a bigger issue than it is between humans. Maybe even smaller, because some STDs does not effect both species. In any case safe "love" is a way to go.



Diseases jumping between different species are actually much worse. Measles, sars, mers, ebola, influenza. They all originated in animals.


----------



## Ashkay Snowhunter (Feb 28, 2016)

It's almost worse than someone abusing a human. Because peoples pets don't do anything wrong, and they have no voice to speak out. All any pet I've ever had has wanted was some attention, and I was always happy to provide.


----------



## Somnium (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Diseases jumping between different species are actually much worse. Measles, sars, mers, ebola, influenza. They all originated in animals.



Get tested. Many diseases can be spread through air, touch or by eating infected meat. Also measles is human only disease.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 28, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Let me tell you, even though it astonishes you that people don't automatically agree with you just because they read what you type online, yeah I read your content, often several times so that I could refer to different parts of your argument.
> 
> But I'm so sorry for you that you feel that you've failed in your obligation to educate me; it must be frustrating for superior intellects such as yourself to be surrounded by dullards like me. :V


I can tell you haven't because you continuously refer to how it only benefits people, despite me explaining MULTIPLE times how it benefits the animal.


----------



## Yago (Feb 29, 2016)

Little late to the party.

Zoophilia is in no way, shape, or form, intrinsically immoral. I'm always quite pleased to see this debate rise up. And more than happy to win it.


----------



## stablercake (Feb 29, 2016)

oh man


----------



## amethystos (Feb 29, 2016)

Don't worry, someone already clarified the difference between bestiality and zoophilia, so no drama is about to interrupt because of that statement. 



Birchnutter said:


> On the topic of zoophilia, if we're going by the definition which is an attraction to animals then it is harmless in itself. As long as it remains a fantasy then I don't see an issue.
> 
> Bestiality though, makes you a sick fuck.



Well, unless someone gets confused...


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 29, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> I can tell you haven't because you continuously refer to how it only benefits people, despite me explaining MULTIPLE times how it benefits the animal.



*sigh* gelding a horse is done to make it more easy for the animal to be managed in human captivity. 

The purpose is domestication, not because losing its gonads is in the animal's best interests; living with humans is not in your best interest if they sterilise you. 

Humans do not go out into the wild and domesticate elephants, then chop off their tusks to make them less likely to hurt each other because it's 'in the elephant's interest'. De-tusking elephants was a pragmatic solution to the problem of persistent gorings by rogue elephants, that was associated with initial attempts at domestication. 

This is a perspective compatible with your comments, and is not 'evidence I haven't read them,'.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 29, 2016)

Somnium said:


> Get tested. Many diseases can be spread through air, touch or by eating infected meat. Also measles is human only disease.



So measles evolved from a Rinderpest virus, which commonly infects cattle. 

Measles virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rinderpest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 29, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> *sigh* gelding a horse is done to make it more easy for the animal to be managed in human captivity.
> 
> The purpose is domestication, not because losing its gonads is in the animal's best interests; living with humans is not in your best interest if they sterilise you.
> 
> ...



Gelding a horse is done because they're dangerous, they will kill each other and severely injure one another to get to a mare in heat. Stallions left to free roam amongst a herd or left within vicinity (jumping fences) can inbreed with their mothers and sisters.

I've never heard in my life, humans going and detusking elephants to make them as pets.



Btw brucellosis is a disease sexually transmitted between animals, that can be passed to humans. Many breeders will demand brucellosis tests before a breeding even takes place.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 29, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> Gelding a horse is done because they're dangerous, they will kill each other and severely injure one another to get to a mare in heat. Stallions left to free roam amongst a herd or left within vicinity (jumping fences) can inbreed with their mothers and sisters.
> 
> I've never heard in my life, humans going and detusking elephants to make them as pets.
> 
> ...



Humans detusking elephants occurred in their domestication to produce war-animals. Typically a pregnant female was targeted, and its tendons severed with axes so that it was essentially an immobile lump. The offspring it bore were then raised into war-animals. 

Anyway, I think whatever disagreement you have with me is semantic; I think that preventing your livestock from being dangerous, killing eachother or breeding to produce inferior offspring is something done because it benefits the livestock owner. If it did not benefit the livestock owner they wouldn't bother doing it. Any argument that it benefits the animal is rather arbitrary, because it's apparent that being sterilised livestock isn't in an animal's interest anyway.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 29, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Humans detusking elephants occurred in their domestication to produce war-animals.


This is completely unrelated to what we're talking about. We're discussing doing things that some may consider harmful or wrong (vet visits) for the benefit of the animal.



Fallowfox said:


> If it did not benefit the livestock owner they wouldn't bother doing it. Any argument that it benefits the animal is rather arbitrary, because it's apparent that being sterilised livestock isn't in an animal's interest anyway.


I'm sure you could say this about many things I've brought up, but you seem disinterested in arguing for anything but what you have sunken into your brain.



Fallowfox said:


> because it's apparent that being sterilised livestock isn't in an animal's interest anyway.


Neither is going to the vets or groomers for a nail trim, but we do it because we assume a dog isn't going to want to live with ingrown toenails.


----------



## Somnium (Feb 29, 2016)

They just won't stop...


----------



## stablercake (Feb 29, 2016)

amethystos said:


> Don't worry, someone already clarified the difference between bestiality and zoophilia, so no drama is about to interrupt because of that statement.
> 
> Well, unless someone gets confused...



That's fair, I didn't read it correctly


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 29, 2016)

Somnium said:


> They just won't stop...


Fallow and I like to debate; is there an issue?


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 29, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> This is completely unrelated to what we're talking about. We're discussing doing things that some may consider harmful or wrong (vet visits) for the benefit of the animal.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could say this about many things I've brought up, but you seem disinterested in arguing for anything but what you have sunken into your brain.
> ...



>>comparing having your nail trimmed to having your balls chopped off.



Volkodav said:


> Fallow and I like to debate; is there an issue?



*You enjoy insisting that nobody reads your comments.


----------



## Somnium (Feb 29, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> Fallow and I like to debate; is there an issue?



It doesn't look like a debate to me anymore, more like a pointless argument.

And no, nails trimming is as important as balls cutting when the animal needs to survive under unnatural conditions.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 29, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> >>comparing having your nail trimmed to having your balls chopped off.


You're not understanding my comparisons.
I'm comparing ignoring the animal's interests for the benefit of the animal. How have you not understood this yet?
Many dogs are completely traumatized by nail-trimming to the point that they have to be restrained and muzzled. They scream and thrash around, bite the veterinarian, and are a mess. Some dogs who need matts cut out of their hair but are too terrified and aggressive to get that done will be put under just for that procedure.

Neutering? Dog gets put under and wakes up without his balls. I'd say the nail trimming is far more traumatizing for a dog.






Groomers get bit a lot by dogs who hate getting trimmed. You get these smaller dogs with mats in their hair that will maul you for cutting them out, the only option is to put them under just to do that.

This cat sure as shit doesn't want to be handled by the vet, but too damn bad! Time to be man-handled into a towel for it's own good.


----------



## Fallowfox (Feb 29, 2016)

There's a big physical difference between trimming nails and removing gonads obviously. 

Clearly having gonads removed is not in the animal's interests; those are the seat of its biological imperative. Humans remove animals gonads in order to make them more docile and manageable and to avoid unwanted offspring; it's something we do for our own convenience. 

If someone really cared about animals, they wouldn't subject them to being pets.


----------



## Somnium (Feb 29, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> There's a big physical difference between trimming nails and removing gonads obviously.
> 
> Clearly having gonads removed is not in the animal's interests; those are the seat of its biological imperative. Humans remove animals gonads in order to make them more docile and manageable and to avoid unwanted offspring; it's something we do for our own convenience.
> 
> *If someone really cared about animals, they wouldn't subject them to being pets*.



Yes, exactly. End of the story


----------



## DianiTheOtter (Feb 29, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> Clearly having gonads removed is not in the animal's interests; those are the seat of its biological imperative. Humans remove animals gonads in order to make them more docile and manageable and to avoid unwanted offspring; it's something we do for our own convenience.



I disagree. While it maybe true for the majority of reasons people neuture their pets, testicular cancer  in males is a problem. It's also in the animals best interest to be neutured if someone can't afford or allowed to have offspring.


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 29, 2016)

Fallowfox said:


> There's a big physical difference between trimming nails and removing gonads obviously.
> 
> Clearly having gonads removed is not in the animal's interests; those are the seat of its biological imperative. Humans remove animals gonads in order to make them more docile and manageable and to avoid unwanted offspring; it's something we do for our own convenience.
> 
> If someone really cared about animals, they wouldn't subject them to being pets.


You're arguing with someone who doesn't support speutering unless absolutely necessary (pyometra, for example)


----------



## stablercake (Feb 29, 2016)

Volkodav said:


> You're arguing with someone who doesn't support speutering unless absolutely necessary (pyometra, for example)


I can see where you wouldn't support it, but I think the overall spay and neuter for pets is a net good because people who are super dumb or bad at pet care will still have pets and if no one told them to spay or neuter I imagine we'd have a lot more neglected animals around.

I guess that counts as inconvenience sort of but the animals aren't super having fun by being a neglected baby critter that can't fend for itself.

THEN AGAIN if a person is super dumb and bad at pet care he will think that breeding animals is a get rich quick scheme and that's how puppy mills are made so...

what was my point again?


----------



## Volkodav (Feb 29, 2016)

stablercake said:


> I can see where you wouldn't support it, but I think the overall spay and neuter for pets is a net good because people who are super dumb or bad at pet care will still have pets and if no one told them to spay or neuter I imagine we'd have a lot more neglected animals around.
> 
> I guess that counts as inconvenience sort of but the animals aren't super having fun by being a neglected baby critter that can't fend for itself.
> 
> ...


I agree with speutering for idiot pet owners, but this puppy speutering shit needs to stop.


----------



## Yago (Feb 29, 2016)

amethystos said:


> Don't worry, someone already clarified the difference between bestiality and zoophilia, so no drama is about to interrupt because of that statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unless someone gets confused...



I'm pretty certain people are already quite misinformed on the issue. Within the zoo community, a plethora of terms such as zoophilia/zoosexuality often refer not to just the sexual and/or romantic attraction itself, but also the practices associated it--read: having sex with animals. Bestiality, as the term is used within the zoo community, refers specifically to such acts performed non-consensually.

So, allow me to clarify myself:

Having sex with animals is not inherently immoral. And there is, to my knowledge, no argument that suggests the immorality of such that can also hold its ground against a proper rebuttal.


----------



## stablercake (Feb 29, 2016)

Where'd that popcorn go


----------

