A black man disagrees with fervorent tumblr user about sexual practises - General

[QUOTE=Laferio;49276411]So you'd be totally for this if you knew the dog consented?? Please clarify.[/QUOTE] If dogs had the cognitive ability to consent, then it wouldn't be immoral. Just disgusting. Of course, dogs don't, and a dog's owner is in a position of power over their dog, so they can't consent on two different levels, therefore it's both immoral and gross.

[QUOTE=axelord157;49274866][URL]http://officialwhitneywisconsin.tumblr.com/[/URL] (obvs NSFW) Great line with "catching fire with a plastic bag".[/QUOTE] At least she got the porn star name right.

"Can't contract any STI's" Fucking what? I'm pretty sure fucking a dog would be incredibly unhygienic, not to mention isn't people fucking animals how AIDS started? ONE OF THE DEADLIEST STI'S ON THE PLANET. [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] This woman is literally the epitome of a bushpig.

[QUOTE=Laferio;49276411]So you'd be totally for this if you knew the dog consented?? Please clarify.[/QUOTE] In theory, as long as these two criteria were met: (Like an ethical sexual interaction between two human-beings) 1. Both parties would have to [i]consent[/i] (As far as I know, a dog cannot consent) 2. The interaction would have to be done in a [i]safe and hygienic[/i] way (This area I have very little knowledge about) ---- My main issue with the first premise is that a dog (or any animal other than a human) can't give coherent and/or direct consent. [i]Therefore,[/i] it is very unlikely you would have an ethical sexual interaction with another animal. In theory, if the dog was to actually convey consent through an appropriate medium and the sexual interaction was sure to be safe, then it is likely that the interaction is ethical. Just because something is perceived as socially taboo doesn't automatically make it [i]completely[/i] unethical. Don't shoot something down simply because you perceive the act as gross. Homosexual acts are deemed disgusting by a wide margin of people, does that make it unethical? If we know both parties are deriving pleasure, consenting, and being safe about the act, is the act unethical? Something to ponder. (This line was not directly aimed at you in any way) Remember, consent and safety are what we look for when deciding if a sexual act is ethical or not.

[QUOTE=exhale77;49277216]In theory, as long as these two criteria were met: (Like an ethical sexual interaction between two human-beings) 1. Both parties would have to [i]consent[/i] (As far as I know, a dog cannot consent) 2. The interaction would have to be done in a [i]safe and hygienic[/i] way (This area I have very little knowledge about) ---- My main issue with the first premise is that a dog (or any animal other than a human) can't give coherent and/or direct consent. [i]Therefore,[/i] it is very unlikely you would have an ethical sexual interaction with another animal. In theory, if the dog was to actually convey consent through an appropriate medium and the sexual interaction was sure to be safe, then it is likely that the interaction is ethical. Just because something is perceived as socially taboo doesn't automatically make it [i]completely[/i] unethical. Don't shoot something down simply because you perceive the act as gross. Homosexual acts are deemed disgusting by a wide margin of people, does that make it unethical? If we know both parties are deriving pleasure, consenting, and being safe about the act, is the act unethical? Something to ponder. (This line was not directly aimed at you in any way) Remember, consent and safety are what we look for when deciding if a sexual act is ethical or not.[/QUOTE] why are you still trying to justify bestiality???? I thought you weren't for it? make up your mind already!

[QUOTE=J!NX;49277256]why are you still trying to justify bestiality???? I thought you weren't for it? make up your mind already![/QUOTE] I've been researching and coming up with my decision. Those are my claims. I urge you to read them; I hope you might respond back with your own. Just to clear things up, I think it is [i]highly unlikely[/i] you can have ethical sexual interaction with another animal. If on the off-chance they could properly supply consent AND the interaction was safe and hygienic, then it is a completely ethical act in my book.

He's not justifying it though, he's trying to break it down. God damn, dude. Is any discussion beyond "eww gross" automatically fanfare and support?

I'm more concerned of how some people in this thread are trying to have a deep discussion on the morality and ethics of screwing animals. It should just be "It's fucking disgusting and immoral" and that's the end of it. [QUOTE=xalener;49277265]He's not justifying it though, he's trying to break it down. God damn, dude. Is any discussion beyond "eww gross" automatically fanfare and support?[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, but do you really want to be having the discussion of people fucking animals? not everything needs to be broken down.

[QUOTE=exhale77;49277261]I've been researching and coming up with my decision. Those are my claims. I urge you to read them; I hope you might respond back with your own.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=exhale77;49277216] Don't shoot something down simply because you perceive the act as gross. Homosexual acts are deemed disgusting by a wide margin of people, does that make it unethical? If we know both parties are deriving pleasure, consenting, and being safe about the act, is the act unethical? Something to ponder. (This line was not directly aimed at you in any way)[/QUOTE] no but what I do see you do is contrasting homosexuality with bestiality

Fair enough, I will leave my thoughts there for you all to ponder.

[QUOTE=exhale77;49277278]Fair enough, I will leave my thoughts there for you all to ponder.[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/0wZZRd7.png[/t] Applies to non-fictional situations too. This is what most college "morals" classes will boil down to, too. We actually went over it in a college that started with "Christian", before coming to a conclusion roughly similar to this.

[QUOTE=Slim Charles;49277267]I'm more concerned of how some people in this thread are trying to have a deep discussion on the morality and ethics of screwing animals.[/QUOTE] Dunno, we could talk about how its hard to really get consent out of them and the threat of disease. I'd say its a discussion worth having since there are people out there that do wanna fuck animals. Also, it is a strange ethical thing. We kill animals to eat them, is fucking them more wrong? Dismissing Homosexuality over "Ew gross" is usually seen as dumb. [QUOTE=Doom14;49277588] This is what most college "morals" classes will boil down to, too. We actually went over it in a college that started with "Christian", before coming to a conclusion roughly similar to this.[/QUOTE] Uh oh Scoob

Don't you think comparing zoophilia and homosexuality is a bit offensive on it's own? [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] Like there's a big difference between feeling attractions to people of the same gender, and say a horse.

[QUOTE=Slim Charles;49277968]Don't you think comparing zoophilia and homosexuality is a bit offensive on it's own? [editline]9th December 2015[/editline] Like there's a big difference between feeling attractions to people of the same gender, and say a horse.[/QUOTE] Also A. Zoophilia is way different than bestiality is, Zoophilia is the act of having the animal come to you, and if it shows itself to you, that is considered consent, if you force yourself onto the animal and the animal doesnt want it and tries to run away, dismount you, etc, that is bestiality, 2 major differences in those words.

Either way if you want to fuck animals you're probably a bit fucked in the head and you should probably seek psychological help. [editline]123[/editline] Like consent or no consent that's fucking filthy.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49277654]Dismissing Homosexuality over "Ew gross" is usually seen as dumb.[/QUOTE] Did you seriously just compare homosexuality with beastiality??

[QUOTE=Doom14;49277588][t]http://i.imgur.com/0wZZRd7.png[/t] Applies to non-fictional situations too. This is what most college "morals" classes will boil down to, too. We actually went over it in a college that started with "Christian", before coming to a conclusion roughly similar to this.[/QUOTE] Wouldnt this picture imply that you could fuck dolphins tho

[QUOTE=WhyNott;49278424]Wouldnt this picture imply that you could fuck dolphins tho[/QUOTE] dolphins are pretty smart but certainly not at human intelligence or greater.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;49278180]Did you seriously just compare homosexuality with beastiality??[/QUOTE] Seems so. Does that make your brain shut down or something? His point is that if saying "it's gross" can't be used to argue against homosexuality, it's not a valid argument against beastiality either, otherwise it would be hypocritical. Saying "Did you seriously just compare *thing* with *other thing*?" is not an argument, yet it's commonly used here as if it were one and I'm starting to grow tired of it. Of course those two things are different, that's the principle of a comparison, that doesn't mean they don't have common points. Saying that a lot of people find beastiality disgusting in the same way a lot of people find homosexual sex disgusting does not equate saying they are one and the same, nor does it mean they are on the same moral foothold.

A similar video from Maximbady on a different girl, funny shit. [video=youtube;z8X3SKUDqsE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8X3SKUDqsE[/video]

[QUOTE=WhyNott;49278424]Wouldnt this picture imply that you could fuck dolphins tho[/QUOTE] "Can it talk or otherwise communicate with language*?" "*Body language is a dangerous road. As always, err on the side of caution." Doesn't exactly sound like a shining recommendation of that to me.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;49278568]"Can it talk or otherwise communicate with language*?" "*Body language is a dangerous road. As always, err on the side of caution." Doesn't exactly sound like a shining recommendation of that to me.[/QUOTE] I've read about experiments where dolphins were taught an artrificial language that involved ultrasound whistles. I think the remark about body language meant something more among the lines of "hay dog you wanna fuck?" "*wags tail*"

[QUOTE=WhyNott;49278424]Wouldnt this picture imply that you could fuck dolphins tho[/QUOTE] Human Intelligence or Greater implies that it actually understands the concept of "consent" and potentially as far as what the sex act curtails and why it's happening. That's way different from "it has an erection/it's acting affectionate, that means we can fuck, right???"

[QUOTE=_Axel;49278518]Saying "Did you seriously just compare *thing* with *other thing*?" is not an argument, yet it's commonly used here as if it were one and I'm starting to grow tired of it. Of course those two things are different, that's the principle of a comparison, that doesn't mean they don't have common points.[/QUOTE] Thank you for saying this I'm really annoyed by this too

[QUOTE=Slim Charles;49277176]"Can't contract any STI's" Fucking what? I'm pretty sure fucking a dog would be incredibly unhygienic, not to mention isn't people fucking animals how AIDS started? ONE OF THE DEADLIEST STI'S ON THE PLANET.[/QUOTE] HIV/AIDS has a really complicated history, especially considering there are multiple strains of HIV and each has different holds on different populations. Suffice to say: No, Humans didn't get it through having sex with animals. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#Emergence[/url]

[QUOTE=Slim Charles;49278174]Either way if you want to fuck animals you're a bit fucked in the head and you should probably seek psychological help. [editline]123[/editline] Like consent or no consent that's fucking filthy.[/QUOTE] Or you just don't have a open mind of the world. Because sticking your dick in a dogs mouth is the cleanest place ever. Cleaner than sticking it in a women's vagina or ass or a mans ass and getting a fucking STI.

Alright let's avoidthe typical arguments and compare beastiality to something that I think everyone could agree is fucked up. Pedophilia. Essentially any other animal in the animal kingdom is pess intelligent than a human toddler. If a baby seemed excited to be around you and you fucked it and it didn't seem to mind, would you think that's okay? No, that would be ridiculous. The baby has no ifea what's really going on. You don't know the terrible consequences it could have and the baby is not able to consent. They do not have the ability to make these decisions. All the way up to an age that the law considers legal.

[QUOTE=omarfr;49281304]Alright let's avoidthe typical arguments and compare beastiality to something that I think everyone could agree is fucked up. Pedophilia. Essentially any other animal in the animal kingdom is pess intelligent than a human toddler. If a baby seemed excited to be around you and you fucked it and it didn't seem to mind, would you think that's okay? No, that would be ridiculous. The baby has no ifea what's really going on. You don't know the terrible consequences it could have and the baby is not able to consent. They do not have the ability to make these decisions. All the way up to an age that the law considers legal.[/QUOTE] Animals can't consent to getting killed either but most people don't seem to mind eating meat. Why is it different when it's about sex? I'm pretty sure a child killer would be hated much more than a molester would be.

[QUOTE=_Axel;49281344]Animals can't consent to getting killed either but most people don't seem to mind eating meat. Why is it different when it's about sex? I'm pretty sure a child killer would be hated much more than a molester would be.[/QUOTE] I would assume that it's because we actually do need their meat in order to survive since we're omnivores, so I would imagine that most people would feel that they can't blame someone else for hunting for food or whatever since they understand that. It's not really necessary for your survival to have sex with everything, though. Although, we tend to kill animals for a lot of other things besides food, so I don't know. Population control and a couple other things seem to be in somewhat good spirit, though.

Well it's not really necessary for survival to eat meat either, there are vegans/vegetarians who manage to do without it.