What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

osarusan · 28-06-2017 09:54PM

pangbang wrote: »

Right, and what about everything ELSE I mentioned?

If you are agreeing that the issue of informed consent is a fundamental difference between the two, then your argument that Y should follow X because Y is just the same as X fails on that point, and everything else is irrelevant.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 09:54PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

so we're back to slavery bad today good yesterday...

You quoted that disease was NOT a factor........where do you place HIV then? If that wasn't a factor for homosexuality, why is it magically a factor for bestiality?

You mention morality and decency. At one point homosexuality was indecent and immoral, now it isn't. So why should bestiality be held to morals and decency that obviously aren't worth a damn seeing as they change with the tide?

So my point still stands, both disease and inherent reason/morality are NOT factors in this hypothetical debate.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2017 09:56PM

pangbang wrote: »

No man, youre missing the point entirely.

I AM conflating the two for the purpose of comparison. And the only difference I see, as I posted above, is that one WAS bad (not anymore), and the other IS bad now.

Its an academic question.

If it was so easily dismissed, there would have been a real simple answer by now.

Saying that its ridiculous is NOT an answer, saying it is ridiculed is NOT an answer. On the contrary, it shows that the question is extremely difficult to answer for some people.

Nah. It has been shredded and dismissed. Your refusal to acknowledge its dismissal doesn't dilute that fact.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 09:57PM

osarusan wrote: »

If you are saying that the issue of informed consent is a fundamental difference between the two, then your argument that Y should follow X because Y is just the same as X fails on that point, and everything else is irrelevant.

So your saying that consent is an overriding factor above disease, history, biology etc....so they don't matter?

Is that not convenient "thinking" on your behalf?

I can admit that consent is indeed a distinction, I just say that everything else I mentioned is more important.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 10:04PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nah. It has been shredded and dismissed. Your refusal to acknowledge its dismissal doesn't dilute that fact.

Alright, I'll make this really easy for you, just like back in playschool

Finish the following sentence (and thereby provide a bloody answer as opposed to the song and dance)

Homosexuality and bestiality share the common traits that they could be/were significant risks of human disease, they could be/were considered "wrong" and "immoral" and "indecent", they could be/were considered biologically defunct and served no "reason", that they could be/were not designed for current use......BUT they are different and cant be compared because............................................................

Finish it off then.

Such a simple, "dumb" question should be easily dismantled. But I have yet to see one single coherent answer that isn't some wild avoidance of the question.

Airyfairy12 · 28-06-2017 10:09PM

pangbang wrote: »

Alright, I'll make this really easy for you, just like back in playschool

Finish the following sentence (and thereby provide a bloody answer as opposed to the song and dance)

Homosexuality and bestiality share the common traits that they could be/were significant risks of human disease, they could be/were considered "wrong" and "immoral" and "indecent", they could be/were considered biologically defunct and served no "reason", that they could be/were not designed for current use......BUT they are different and cant be compared because............................................................

Finish it off then.

Such a simple, "dumb" question should be easily dismantled. But I have yet to see one single coherent answer that isn't some wild avoidance of the question.

Youve had your question answered a hundred times but you choose to ignore it. No one said it was dumb. Theres a very logical reason, Consent! One is abuse, one isnt. Unless you think that the concept of consent or sexual molestation is dumb??

It really sounds like youre trying really really hard to justify beastiality to yourself.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2017 10:12PM

pangbang wrote: »

Alright, I'll make this really easy for you, just like back in playschool

Finish the following sentence (and thereby provide a bloody answer as opposed to the song and dance)

Homosexuality and bestiality share the common traits that they could be/were significant risks of human disease, they could be/were considered "wrong" and "immoral" and "indecent", they could be/were considered biologically defunct and served no "reason", that they could be/were not designed for current use......BUT they are different and cant be compared because............................................................

Finish it off then.

Such a simple, "dumb" question should be easily dismantled. But I have yet to see one single coherent answer that isn't some wild avoidance of the question.

Hetereosexual anal sex and bestiality share the common traits that they could be/were significant risks of human disease, they could be/were considered "wrong" and "immoral" and "indecent", they could be/were considered biologically defunct and served no "reason", that they could be/were not designed for current use......BUT they are different and cant be compared because............................................................

Finish it off then.

Such a simple, "dumb" question should be easily dismantled. But I have yet to see one single coherent answer that isn't some wild avoidance of the question.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 10:15PM

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Youve had your question answered a hundred times but you choose to ignore it. No one said it was dumb. Theres a very logical reason, Consent! One is abuse, one isnt. Unless you think that the concept of consent or sexual molestation is dumb??

It really sounds like youre trying really really hard to justify beastiality to yourself.

No, I haven't had the question answered, and you damn well know it. And most people reading the last few pages will see that it hasn't been answered either.

I'll take your point about consent, but as I already answered to someone who said the exact same thing......what about the other factors then?

Its not good enough to have 4 or 5 comparators, and that because one doesn't fit, the other 3 or 4 can just be dismissed out of hand. That's not logical.

BorneTobyWilde · 28-06-2017 10:16PM

Do animals consent to getting murdered?

I think the whole consent thing is silly argument.

It's as simply as knowing what is right or wrong, or at least what society tells us is right or wrong. There are many countries where it's legal. Lot's of states in USA ,Canada, Germany so on .

pangbang · 28-06-2017 10:17PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hetereosexual anal sex and bestiality share the common traits that they could be/were significant risks of human disease, they could be/were considered "wrong" and "immoral" and "indecent", they could be/were considered biologically defunct and served no "reason", that they could be/were not designed for current use......BUT they are different and cant be compared because............................................................

Finish it off then.

Such a simple, "dumb" question should be easily dismantled. But I have yet to see one single coherent answer that isn't some wild avoidance of the question.

Sorry man, you just flunked playschool.

One is the literal definition of existence, and didn't come into fashion or trend, wasn't condemned through history etc etc.

False equivalency.

And that just goes to show how difficult the question is to answer (without giving the obvious answer of course!)

Mod-Banned

Roger Hassenforder · 28-06-2017 10:19PM

pangbang wrote: »

You quoted that disease was NOT a factor........where do you place HIV then? If that wasn't a factor for homosexuality, why is it magically a factor for bestiality?

You mention morality and decency. At one point homosexuality was indecent and immoral, now it isn't. So why should bestiality be held to morals and decency that obviously aren't worth a *** seeing as they change with the tide?

So my point still stands, both disease and inherent reason/morality are NOT factors in this hypothetical debate.

there are several reasons against bestiality, moral, dignity, human exceptionalism, welfare, consent, religious, legal, health. IMO, they only one that stands up to any test is the human heath.
likewise there are several reasons why necrophilia is rejected: moral, dignity, human exceptionalism, welfare, consent, religious, legal, health.

your point falls because you are unable to disprove the argument from a health perspective. your argument is constructed around whataboutery

dr.fuzzenstein · 28-06-2017 10:19PM

Its simple. If you don't get it you're a sick fcuk.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2017 10:19PM

pangbang wrote: »

Sorry man, you just flunked playschool.

One is the literal definition of existence, and didn't come into fashion or trend, wasn't condemned through history etc etc.

False equivalency.

And that just goes to show how difficult the question is to answer (without giving the obvious answer of course!)

And you equate bestiality and homosexuality. The ironing is delicious.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 10:26PM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

there are several reasons against bestiality, moral, dignity, human exceptionalism, welfare, consent, religious, legal, health. IMO, they only one that stands up to any test is the human heath.
likewise there are several reasons why necrophilia is rejected: moral, dignity, human exceptionalism, welfare, consent, religious, legal, health.

your point falls because you are unable to disprove the argument from a health perspective. your argument is constructed around whataboutery

I honestly think we aren't communicating properly.

You are proving my point, you are telling me all the commonalities....my question is what is the difference? Youre answering it for me.

I don't know what you are saying about health. Genuinely. So at the risk of answering the wrong question.....I'll say it again, homosexuality was intrinsically linked with HIV (socially and scientifically) but that didn't make any difference to homosexuality becoming accepted.

THEREFORE

saying that bestiality could be the source of disease is a moot point. It wasn't a good enough reason to reject homosexuality, so its not a good reason to reject bestiality.

And to be clear, this must come off as terribly anti-gay, but I promise it isn't the intention. It just so happens to be a very good comparator for the subject at hand, and also the most recent change from "unacceptable" to "acceptable" in society.

pangbang · 28-06-2017 10:30PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And you equate bestiality and homosexuality. The ironing is delicious.

Well you can eat all the laundry you want, but I have clearly, multiple times, stated my fundamentals for the comparison.

You on the otherhand, cant even answer a simple question, despite stating that the question was "shredded" and "ridiculous" and "already answered". What does that say about you, when you cant debunk a "ridiculous" question?

Yeah, right on!

Noticing the sound of crickets here as I stand my ground. Still no answer.

Professor Moriarty · 28-06-2017 10:41PM

pangbang wrote: »

Well you can eat all the laundry you want, but I have clearly, multiple times, stated my fundamentals for the comparison.

You on the otherhand, cant even answer a simple question, despite stating that the question was "shredded" and "ridiculous" and "already answered". What does that say about you, when you cant debunk a "ridiculous" question?

Yeah, right on!

Noticing the sound of crickets here as I stand my ground. Still no answer.

No answer that you have any interest in hearing. Enjoy the crickets...

123shooter · 28-06-2017 10:56PM

Murrisk wrote: »

Super. There were a lot of things that happened in ancient times that are now recognised as uncivilised or barbaric.

Ahh but then you have to explain what you regard as uncivilized and barbaric.........because they may not be to others.

What a subject:eek::eek:.......Anybody been to Wales?

pickarooney · 28-06-2017 10:58PM

Candie wrote: »

You're hung up on HIV. Are you forgetting that it's also transmitted between hetrosexuals? It's not a 'gay' illness, part of the reason for it's spread is because people assumed it was. Most transmissions are between hetrosexuals, so lets not hold gay people to account for spreading disease, especially when you consider the human cost of syphillis long before HIV.

The big three diseases are malaria, tuberculolsis and HIV. We already know that we can and do fall prey to devastating illness of animal origin as things stand. You want to go for a big four by adding transmission via sexual fluids too? Or a big five?

How about we just leave gay people out of this discussion, since it's about bestiality and nothing to do with human consensual sexual activity? Can we do that? Or are you just absolutely determined to draw parallels that don't exist?

Are you of the opinion that decriminalising bestiality would lead to a huge uptake in the practice? That there are millions of people waiting for the ban to lift on the love that dare not bleat its name? It seems rather a moot argument otherwise.

Day Lewin · 28-06-2017 11:01PM

Well, since somebody mentioned it - I've always wondered why the prejudice against necrophilia, too.

(not that I fancy it, I don't, far from it. But as an example of a maybe-irrational prejudice?)

I mean, it's only a dead body. Has no feelings, no emotions, no powers to object to anything, is entirely unaffected by the whole proceedings. A discarded garment. If it died of something like eg drowning or heart failure, no risk of infectious disease either.

I mean, I think this is creepy too. (like bestiality) But "thinking" it is different than finding a good, factual reason to condemn it.

kingchess · 28-06-2017 11:02PM

pangbang wrote: »

Well you can eat all the laundry you want, but I have clearly, multiple times, stated my fundamentals for the comparison.

You on the otherhand, cant even answer a simple question, despite stating that the question was "shredded" and "ridiculous" and "already answered". What does that say about you, when you cant debunk a "ridiculous" question?

Yeah, right on!

Noticing the sound of crickets here as I stand my ground. Still no answer.

I cant answer your question either , I believe having sex with animals is wrong and then I see no problem hanging a pig upside down in order to cut its throat, So what makes one act wrong and the other right??other than the fact I like bacon but dont like sex with animals/? Maybe we are all acting like the Puritans who put a stop to such simple past-times as bear-baiting-not because it caused harm to the bear but because it gave pleasure to those watching???:mad:

Day Lewin · 28-06-2017 11:03PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that decriminalising bestiality would lead to a huge uptake in the practice? That there are millions of people waiting for the ban to lift on the love that dare not bleat its name? It seems rather a moot argument otherwise.

It might be so. How can we know?

Eimee90 · 28-06-2017 11:05PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

eh? save their life? I'm guessing you're not a farmer.

Yes a vet can save an animals life.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 11:05PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that decriminalising bestiality would lead to a huge uptake in the practice? That there are millions of people waiting for the ban to lift on the love that dare not bleat its name? It seems rather a moot argument otherwise.

It being illegal with heavy penalties might give people pause. And considering there are very valid reasons for not wanting it happen, anything that helps to minimise it is a good thing. The central thesis of the OP and others appears to be that people only have woolly reasons for opposing it. But that's certainly not the case for everyone and some very good arguments have been put forward on this thread for why it should be minimised through illegality - possible reemergence of eradicated diseases, the passing of new diseases to humans, injuries to humans or animals.

Day Lewin wrote: »

If it died of something like eg drowning or heart failure, no risk of infectious disease either.

123shooter · 28-06-2017 11:09PM

Murrisk wrote: »

It being illegal with heavy penalties might give people pause. And considering there are very valid reasons for not wanting it happen, anything that helps to minimise it is a good thing. The central thesis of the OP and others appears to be that people only have woolly reasons for opposing it. But that's certainly not the case for everyone and some very good arguments have been put forward on this thread for why it should be minimised through illegality - possible reemergence of eradicated diseases, the passing of new diseases to humans, injuries to humans or animals.

I really shouldn't ask this but now you mention it I have to know.:eek:

What diseases could you catch if you had sex with animals?

I have had dogs all my life male and female and never known or even heard of them having any sexually transmitted diseases.

pickarooney · 28-06-2017 11:16PM

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Pedophelia and necrophelia exist, always have, are even common...Doesnt make them right though. Even if theyre a sexual release because theres no other outlet.. theyre still not right.

'The dog could have barked or backed away' ...So like he wanted it? ..Sounds eerily similar to victim blaming in rape victims.

The dog doesnt back away because the dog doesnt have the intelligence to understand whats going on or the ability to comprehend that it's being sexually molested, a dog is primitive and cant consent to having sex. A human has the intelligence to understand that having sex with an animal is not only abusive and degrading to the animal itself but its taking advantage of a living being for sexual gratification regardless of the potential harm you could inflict on the animal youre sexually molesting. I cant believe that needs to be explained to you??

That's an awful lot of contradiction and anthropomorphism couched in a statement of common sense. An animal, which doesn't understand the difference between being fisted for money or rogered for jollies, is not going to spiral into self-loathing depression or feel degraded or taken advantage of. You're talking out both sides of your mouth.

Murrisk · 28-06-2017 11:20PM

123shooter wrote: »

I really shouldn't ask this but now you mention it I have to know.:eek:

What diseases could you catch if you had sex with animals?

OK, here's the science bit. Basically, animals can be reservoirs for diseases. This means that they are capable of hosting a certain bacteria or virus without it doing them any damage. However, that microbe or virus could be harmful to humans. There are some diseases that have been eradicated from the human population. BUT we can't say that they are completely eradicated from the earth. Some type of animal could well be a natural reservoir for whatever causes those diseases.

And the key point here: we don't know if any of that is the case and might not find out until it is too late. People are not vaccinated against eradicated diseases anymore because, well, they've been eradicated from the human population. If an eradicated diseases reemerged in the population now, most people would have no immunity to it and that could spell disaster.

And not even eradicated diseases, animals might be reservoirs for bacteria and viruses that have as yet not caused illness in humans but might well do. We just don't know. It's not possible to study what microbes all the animals are carrying around with them. And it's not possible to know what affect they might have on humans in the abstract. And because of that, we can't risk the transmission of things an animal might be carrying to a human. I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with this, to be honest.

And even before I had the scientific knowledge I have now, I was always uneasy about it on those grounds. I didn't know exactly why I should be uneasy about it but I realised that animal could be carrying things that are harmful to humans. Human to human disease is well studied. Animal to human, less so, because there are so many goddamn animals and it's not exactly something that you can easily ethically study or observe.

Samaris · 28-06-2017 11:21PM

123shooter wrote: »

I really shouldn't ask this but now you mention it I have to know.:eek:

What diseases could you catch if you had sex with animals?

I have had dogs all my life male and female and never known or even heard of them having any sexually transmitted diseases.

I was curious about that too. To save anyone else having to google it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

The Backwards Man · 28-06-2017 11:22PM

There's a Wiki page for everything now

123shooter · 28-06-2017 11:24PM

Samaris wrote: »

I was curious about that too. To save anyone else having to google it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

Thanks for that but they aren't the usual nobrot disease stuff though are they.

Chorcai · 28-06-2017 11:28PM

http://www.thejournal.ie/woman-died-from-allergic-reaction-to-sex-with-dog-172620-Jul2011/

Link to article dont know if it was posted yet

What exactly is the problem with bestiality?

Comments