submitted 2016-09-11 16:37:14 by thelongestusernameeethese posts are too deep for me. im starting to get all weird ag
thelongestusernameeethese posts are too deep for me. im starting to get all weird ag 8 points on 2016-09-11 16:41:31
if the link doesnt work for you, here's the full comment.
I am not pro-bestiality by any means, just playing the devils advocate here. But don't we have a massive double standard going on here? Animals can't give consent to sex, but they also can't give concent to being part of breeding programs, being, artificially inseminated, being castrated, being jacked off (sperm collection?), or you know, getting slaughtered. We basically treat animals as objects with no (sexual)rights in the meat industry, but when you add in a video camera their feelings and consent suddenly matters? Hell, if feelings are important, the animal probably enjoys bestiality more than getting slaughtered.
alenkaL 3 points on 2016-09-11 18:24:21
thats the worst logic for beastiality ever.
all those things are actions against the animals.
ofcourse they dont requere concent. its like saying if slavery is ok (it isnt), than raping black girls is fine.
TheBrockGage 2 points on 2016-09-11 20:03:55
Raping slaves was okay though...
alenkaL 1 point on 2016-09-12 04:38:51
if you feel that your animal is your slave i feel bad for you
TheBrockGage 1 point on 2016-09-12 05:00:35
Some are slaves, such as pigs and cows killed for meat. Are you saying we can fuck then but not pets?
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 2 points on 2016-09-12 13:18:52
No, they're saying that this is a half baked argument which takes the true focus(the animals feelings) and turning it into a selfish one for why should technically be fine to have sex with animals.
TheBrockGage 1 point on 2016-09-12 13:58:36
Most people don't care about the animals feelings anyway. Even if I get fucked by my dog it's still somehow abuse. I love my pets and would never hurt them. Why can't I love them romantically as well?
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 1 point on 2016-09-12 14:20:12
Im not saying it makes the statement wrong in terms of comparing to law, but it doesn't really encompass our ideals.
Edog91 1 point on 2016-09-15 17:33:11
It's not supposed to encompass your ideas its supposed to call out discrimination. No one is saying animal consent is not important, just can't ban us on this count of bullshit
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 1 point on 2016-09-15 18:26:39
We should strive to use arguments where negative implications cannot easily be drawn if we want to have a chance at impacting anything, because social backing needs to come before one could even think of the law looking at us with any degree of seriousness.
alenkaL 1 point on 2016-09-12 20:19:41
im saying that if you compare having sex with a pet to be legitemate as rape. than your logic isnt helping anyone out
30-30amator equae -2 points on 2016-09-11 19:52:12
Hearing this shit above over and over again for decades now, I can only say that´s the worst "pro argument" a so called "zoophile" (remember? Zoophile translates to "friend of an animal") can try to instrumentalize.
Stuff like this only shows that parroting bullshit you read on the internet won´t ever be able to replace actual thinking. I even wonder what kind of "zoophiles" would ever dare to justify their sexual actions with this....it´s basically like "Hey, legalize running around and breaking people´s arms! You know, in other parts of the world, folks are shot, so it can´t be sooo hard to allow breaking arms, right?"
This "logic" is what may be the best description of the nature of "zoophiles"...at least those that have been created by the internet. Mindless parrots in a sex craze.
We need to stop this shit. Now. Without an undisputable, carved in stone, codex that is obligatory for anyone calling himself a zoophile, the entire struggle for tolerance isn´t only useless, it even is damaging.
The more I can see how it all has changed since the nineties, the more I wish the internet never was invented.
By the way, the comment even starts off with a blatant lie; it has been written by a very frequent BF user, so "not pro-bestiality by any means"? Ridiculous.
thelongestusernameeethese posts are too deep for me. im starting to get all weird ag 2 points on 2016-09-12 00:48:57
ok, so i can understand how many people are misinterpreting the reason i posted this here. i posted it as something that points out the flaws with being staunchly anti bestiality (as many people are) while still taking part in many of the animal related luxuries of society (which many people do). I know its a bad argument to be pro bestiality and i don't think it was meant to be a pro bestiality argument.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 4 points on 2016-09-12 01:16:50
Logically, it IS a complete argument if your goal is to show hypocrisy.
Morally and from a PR perspective, it's the worst argument we could use.
thelongestusernameeethese posts are too deep for me. im starting to get all weird ag 1 point on 2016-09-12 01:29:04
Yeah, i agree. But if you look at the replies, apparently its what works for the non zoos, and that may just be all that really matters. It doesnt matter how logical or moral your argument is if people are just going to cover their ears and scream.
Edog91 1 point on 2016-09-15 05:42:21
Worst argument, why? It's not an argument addressing morality its addressing equal distributions under the law.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-09-16 21:05:08
It's bad to point at other wrong things in society and scream about how because we accept them, we must accept this "other" considered-wrong activity.
It makes you look like you know it's wrong in the first place. I couldn't have an opinion anything farther from that if I tried.
/r/zoophilia archive
if the link doesnt work for you, here's the full comment.
I am not pro-bestiality by any means, just playing the devils advocate here. But don't we have a massive double standard going on here? Animals can't give consent to sex, but they also can't give concent to being part of breeding programs, being, artificially inseminated, being castrated, being jacked off (sperm collection?), or you know, getting slaughtered. We basically treat animals as objects with no (sexual)rights in the meat industry, but when you add in a video camera their feelings and consent suddenly matters? Hell, if feelings are important, the animal probably enjoys bestiality more than getting slaughtered.
thats the worst logic for beastiality ever. all those things are actions against the animals. ofcourse they dont requere concent. its like saying if slavery is ok (it isnt), than raping black girls is fine.
Raping slaves was okay though...
if you feel that your animal is your slave i feel bad for you
Some are slaves, such as pigs and cows killed for meat. Are you saying we can fuck then but not pets?
No, they're saying that this is a half baked argument which takes the true focus(the animals feelings) and turning it into a selfish one for why should technically be fine to have sex with animals.
Most people don't care about the animals feelings anyway. Even if I get fucked by my dog it's still somehow abuse. I love my pets and would never hurt them. Why can't I love them romantically as well?
Im not saying it makes the statement wrong in terms of comparing to law, but it doesn't really encompass our ideals.
It's not supposed to encompass your ideas its supposed to call out discrimination. No one is saying animal consent is not important, just can't ban us on this count of bullshit
We should strive to use arguments where negative implications cannot easily be drawn if we want to have a chance at impacting anything, because social backing needs to come before one could even think of the law looking at us with any degree of seriousness.
im saying that if you compare having sex with a pet to be legitemate as rape. than your logic isnt helping anyone out
Hearing this shit above over and over again for decades now, I can only say that´s the worst "pro argument" a so called "zoophile" (remember? Zoophile translates to "friend of an animal") can try to instrumentalize.
Stuff like this only shows that parroting bullshit you read on the internet won´t ever be able to replace actual thinking. I even wonder what kind of "zoophiles" would ever dare to justify their sexual actions with this....it´s basically like "Hey, legalize running around and breaking people´s arms! You know, in other parts of the world, folks are shot, so it can´t be sooo hard to allow breaking arms, right?"
This "logic" is what may be the best description of the nature of "zoophiles"...at least those that have been created by the internet. Mindless parrots in a sex craze.
We need to stop this shit. Now. Without an undisputable, carved in stone, codex that is obligatory for anyone calling himself a zoophile, the entire struggle for tolerance isn´t only useless, it even is damaging.
The more I can see how it all has changed since the nineties, the more I wish the internet never was invented. By the way, the comment even starts off with a blatant lie; it has been written by a very frequent BF user, so "not pro-bestiality by any means"? Ridiculous.
ok, so i can understand how many people are misinterpreting the reason i posted this here. i posted it as something that points out the flaws with being staunchly anti bestiality (as many people are) while still taking part in many of the animal related luxuries of society (which many people do). I know its a bad argument to be pro bestiality and i don't think it was meant to be a pro bestiality argument.
Logically, it IS a complete argument if your goal is to show hypocrisy.
Morally and from a PR perspective, it's the worst argument we could use.
Yeah, i agree. But if you look at the replies, apparently its what works for the non zoos, and that may just be all that really matters. It doesnt matter how logical or moral your argument is if people are just going to cover their ears and scream.
Worst argument, why? It's not an argument addressing morality its addressing equal distributions under the law.
It's bad to point at other wrong things in society and scream about how because we accept them, we must accept this "other" considered-wrong activity.
It makes you look like you know it's wrong in the first place. I couldn't have an opinion anything farther from that if I tried.