Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i'm not asking cause i want to screw animals (promise). i was just thinking... what is the reason it's not ok to screw animals again? i have heard that it is wrong because sex requires consent.. but that only applies to humans. sex with a doll for example doesn't require consent. so if sex with animals requires consent then you are extending human rights to animals. in which case we probably shouldn't be slaughtering them cause we like the way they taste, or doing experiments on them that we think it would be unethical to do to humans.

the way i look at it either animals' lives aren't worth that much so we do what we please with them or they are worthy of rights in which case we are way out of line with how we currently treat them across the board. i'm having trouble finding the middle ground where slaughtering them is fine, keeping them in captivity for entertainment is fine, injecting them with shit to see what happens is fine, but screwing them is over the line.

another possible objection i thought of is maybe we consider exploitation of animals ok depending on the objective. so we consider food (farming), sport (hunting, rodeos, etc), science (experimentation), and education (zoos and shit) to be worthy causes for animal exploitation. but exploiting them for sex is wrong for whatever reason. as for what that reason is i'm not quite sure.

thoughts?

Yes, because that is the answer you're looking for.

Certain animals are more capable than others of making the choice to have sex with a human. Dolphins for instance will often aggressively initiate an encounter.

In this case the only thing "wrong" about it is the danger to the human partner given the dolphin's size and strength.

In most cases though having sex with an animal is similar to having sex with a mentally disabled person--it often requires 'assuming' consent or taking consent for granted which is all kinds of wrong.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Certain animals are more capable than others of making the choice to have sex with a human. Dolphins for instance will often aggressively initiate an encounter.

In this case the only thing "wrong" about it is the danger to the human partner given the dolphin's size and strength.

In most cases though having sex with an animal is similar to having sex with a mentally disabled person--it often requires 'assuming' consent or taking consent for granted which is all kinds of wrong. why do you need the animal's consent though? why does the animal have a right not to be molested but not a right not to be slaughtered/worked/captured/etc.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

In most cases though having sex with an animal is similar to having sex with a mentally disabled person--it often requires 'assuming' consent or taking consent for granted which is all kinds of wrong. lol

I don't personally care about the consent of animals at all. They're not human beings, why should I? So morally, I can't really get too upset about a guy ****ing his sheep or a girl being mounted by her dog.

I'd still advise against it because almost every animal is a carrier for diseases and infections that can be fatal to humans.

It's advisable for a species to have a variety of genetic variation in its population, so to avoid a future bottleneck I heartily endorse f*cking as many animals as possible, in the hopes that we can one day breed a new race of super animal/man hybrids.

And here I thought people would start posting links to online bestial-porn, doggy-f*ck videos and what not.

Originally posted by Epicurus
And here I thought people would start posting links to online bestial-porn, doggy-f*ck videos and what not.

What you do at home, try and keep to you're self slummo.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What you do at home, try and keep to you're self slummo.
I don't f*ck your wife at home, baby. I have never even taken her back to the apartment for a night long session.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I don't f*ck your wife at home, baby. I have never even taken her back to the apartment for a night long session.

He's married?


I am friends with him on Facebook and I had no idea he was married.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's married?


I am friends with him on Facebook and I had no idea he was married.
It's just a reference to the little jab which I poked him with to get him banned on his Supra account last time.

Originally posted by Epicurus
It's just a reference to the little jab which I poked him with to get him banned on his Supra account last time.

You found his button...

Why would he get upset about someone making fun of a nonexistent person?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You found his button...

Why would he get upset about someone making fun of a nonexistent person?
He used to get upset due to that back when he was officially Supra. Nowadays his button is anytime I call him Supra. Just drives him crazy.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm not asking cause i want to screw animals (promise). i was just thinking... what is the reason it's not ok to screw animals again? i have heard that it is wrong because sex requires consent.. but that only applies to humans. sex with a doll for example doesn't require consent. so if sex with animals requires consent then you are extending human rights to animals. in which case we probably shouldn't be slaughtering them cause we like the way they taste, or doing experiments on them that we think it would be unethical to do to humans.

the way i look at it either animals' lives aren't worth that much so we do what we please with them or they are worthy of rights in which case we are way out of line with how we currently treat them across the board. i'm having trouble finding the middle ground where slaughtering them is fine, keeping them in captivity for entertainment is fine, injecting them with shit to see what happens is fine, but screwing them is over the line.

another possible objection i thought of is maybe we consider exploitation of animals ok depending on the objective. so we consider food (farming), sport (hunting, rodeos, etc), science (experimentation), and education (zoos and shit) to be worthy causes for animal exploitation. but exploiting them for sex is wrong for whatever reason. as for what that reason is i'm not quite sure.

thoughts?

We shouldn't be treating animals the way we do.

We've been screwing animals for millennia: metastasizing over the planet like a cancer, destroying habitats, etc.

If there is a Higher Power, God have mercy on us for how we've been treating them.

Originally posted by Epicurus
He used to get upset due to that back when he was officially Supra. Nowadays his button is anytime I call him Supra. Just drives him crazy.

You think calling me Supra pushes my buttons? You really are stupid slummo.

Originally posted by Epicurus
It's just a reference to the little jab which I poked him with to get him banned on his Supra account last time.

Oh so you tried to get my banned? I'll make sure to do the same for you're dumbass.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I don't f*ck your wife at home, baby. I have never even taken her back to the apartment for a night long session.

Lol, when did I get married slum dog?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Lol, when did I get married slum dog?
Back when you were Supra, Supra.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You think calling me Supra pushes my buttons? You really are stupid slummo.
Yep, as is evident from you losing your shit so quickly in this very thread, Supra.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh so you tried to get my banned? I'll make sure to do the same for you're dumbass.
I didn't try, I got you banned Supra. That's the whole reason why you made a new account on KMC.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I didn't try, I got you banned Supra. That's the whole reason why you made a new account on KMC.

Don't worry, you will be banned soon enough. You up for perma ban. Or did you forget?

Originally posted by Epicurus
Yep, as is evident from you losing your shit so quickly in this very thread, Supra.

Losing my shit? I'm having fun watching you dance for me.

I call you answer.

I'm not sure how I feel about people having sex with animals, I suppose it can be done without harming or abusing the animal, and in that case I guess I don't have a moral issue with it. However I would like to add to the people condemning our treatment of animals generally, I do think we should change that...cause it's terrible...

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Losing my shit? I'm having fun watching you dance for me.

I call you answer.
Considering that you're the one who follows me into every thread and then pollutes it with your butthurt, I'd say you're way offbase here, Supra.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Don't worry, you will be banned soon enough. You up for perma ban. Or did you forget?
I am only up for it. You already experienced it, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Considering that you're the one who follows me into every thread and then pollutes it with your butthurt, I'd say you're way offbase here, Supra.

Not really, you been following me into every thread. You just don't like it that I respond.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure how I feel about people having sex with animals, I suppose it can be done without harming or abusing the animal, and in that case I guess I don't have a moral issue with it. However I would like to add to the people condemning our treatment of animals generally, I do think we should change that...cause it's terrible...
Of course it can be done. Otherwise there wouldn't be a shit ton of bestiality porn on the internet. But anyways, bestiality in some circles is seen as bad, if not worse than pedophilia. It's doubtful it's ever going to be seen as "okay" in contemporary social circles. Heck, there are even some porn-communities which view it unfavorably.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Not really, you been following me into every thread. You just don't like it that I respond.
You and I both know that that is a blatant lie, Supra. Just me calling you Supra set you off the rails in other threads as well. Your butthurt from being called Supra is massive enough to qualify as a 9.8 quake on the Ritcher scale, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Of course it can be done. Otherwise there wouldn't be a shit ton of bestiality porn on the internet.

I think your reply is disregarding the second part of my sentence there...

Originally posted by Epicurus
You and I both know that that is a blatant lie, Supra. Just me calling you Supra set you off the rails in other threads as well. Your butthurt from being called Supra is massive enough to qualify as a 9.8 quake on the Ritcher scale, Supra.

Nope, Epidural.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think your reply is disregarding the second part of my sentence there...
About general animal treatment? Yeah, I agree to an extent that it is very shitty as of now, but that point isn't what I wanted to address primarily.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Nope, Epidural.
Got tired of the slum dog slurs already? Only Bada calls me epidural and gets away with it, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Got tired of the slum dog slurs already? Only Bada calls me epidural and gets away with it, Supra.

Boo hoo Epidural

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Boo hoo Epidural
I see that you're heading towards another epic nervous breakdown, Supra. This should be at least as fun as it was last time.

Originally posted by Epicurus
About general animal treatment? Yeah, I agree to an extent that it is very shitty as of now, but that point isn't what I wanted to address primarily.

No, like where I said "I suppose it can be done without harming or abusing the animal"...the existence of bestiality porn is not sufficient to prove that it can be done without harm and abuse. Opponents of bestiality will claim that the pornography depicting it is harming and abusing the animals in it.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I see that you're heading towards another epic nervous breakdown, Supra. This should be at least as fun as it was last time.

If you could only see the smile on my face, Epidural

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, like where I said "I suppose it can be done without harming or abusing the animal"...the existence of bestiality porn is not sufficient to prove that it can be done without harm and abuse. Opponents of bestiality will claim that the pornography depicting it is harming and abusing the animals in it.
You might as well claim that no sex act should be done since the likelihood of harm and abuse exists in sexual intercourse. Heck, even natural intercourse within a species(like cats) is extremely painful that it borders on what humans would label as abuse.

Which opponents? If you're talking about PETA-lite people, then forget it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
If you could only see the smile on my face, Epidural
Forced, and surrounded by a bright red flush of embarrassment at getting owned by me all over again, Supra. Yes, that describes your so-called "smile" perfectly.

Originally posted by Epicurus
You might as well claim that no sex act should be done since the likelihood of harm and abuse exists in sexual intercourse. Heck, even natural intercourse within a species(like cats) is extremely painful that it borders on what humans would label as abuse.

Which opponents? If you're talking about PETA-lite people, then forget it.

You sounds like you have vast experience in knowledge in this sort of thing, Epidural, Whats wrong, PETA on that ass?

Originally posted by Epicurus
Forced, and surrounded by a bright red flush of embarrassment at getting owned by me all over again, Supra. Yes, that describes your so-called "smile" perfectly.

I wish you knew the truth, sadly you amuse yourself with made up lies about the unknown, Epidural.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I wish you knew the truth, sadly you amuse yourself with made up lies about the unknown, Epidural.
Like what, Supra? Humor me.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Like what, Supra? Humor me.

You seem to think you have upset me, when quiet the contrary, you make me laugh. You seen to hate, I'm just here to have fun, Epidural.

Originally posted by Epicurus
You might as well claim that no sex act should be done since the likelihood of harm and abuse exists in sexual intercourse. Heck, even natural intercourse within a species(like cats) is extremely painful that it borders on what humans would label as abuse.

Which opponents? If you're talking about PETA-lite people, then forget it.


I don't think that's a good argument. Opposition to sex with animals (even on the grounds of it being animal abuse) does not mean one has to oppose sex between human beings.

tbh it seems to me that most people are against bestiality, not only members of PETA

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that's a good argument. Opposition to sex with animals (even on the grounds of it being animal abuse) does not mean one has to oppose sex between human beings.

tbh it seems to me that most people are against bestiality, not only members of PETA

He lost his good arguing sense when Ush banned him and gave him a final warning, ever since then, he's a shell of his former raging self.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that's a good argument. Opposition to sex with animals (even on the grounds of it being animal abuse) does not mean one has to oppose sex between human beings.

tbh it seems to me that most people are against bestiality, not only members of PETA Only because it's considered gross though.

Animals are far less at risk than humans are when they mate.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You seem to think you have upset me, when quiet the contrary, you make me laugh. You seen to hate, I'm just here to have fun, Epidural.
I don't think I've upset you, I know that I have upset you. Fundamental difference between the 2 terms, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I don't think I've upset you, I know that I have upset you. Fundamental difference between the 2 terms, Supra.

See there is where you are wrong, Epidural

Supra you came into this thread and began bashing Epicurus first. It's obvious you have a vendetta against him.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think that's a good argument. Opposition to sex with animals (even on the grounds of it being animal abuse) does not mean one has to oppose sex between human beings.

Nope, but it is based off your premise that you wouldn't mind it as long as it didn't involve harm or abuse of any kind. Tell me, do you mind human on human sex due to abuse/harm inherently involved in sex?
Originally posted by Bardock42
tbh it seems to me that most people are against bestiality, not only members of PETA
I already mentioned that, and you ignored it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
See there is where you are wrong, Epidural
Incorrect, Supra.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Supra you came into this thread and began bashing Epicurus first. It's obvious you have a vendetta against him.

Oh right, but when he comes into other threads and bashes, thats different.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Incorrect, Supra.

Correct. I'm bored, its hot out and its Sunday. You can't make me mad when I'm laughing at you're experiences with screwing animals, Epidural.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh right, but when he comes into other threads and bashes, thats different.
So far, you're the one who's been following me into every thread and penning down bait posts filled with racial slurs, Supra. It would only be fair game for me to respond in kind.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Correct. I'm bored, its hot out and its Sunday. You can't make me mad when I'm laughing at you're experiences with screwing animals, Epidural.
Your butthurt says otherwise. You aren't fooling anyone here, Supra.13

Originally posted by Epicurus
So far, you're the one who's been following me into every thread and penning down bait posts filled with racial slurs, Supra. It would only be fair game for me to respond in kind.

Racial slurs? Proof?

Originally posted by Epicurus
Your butthurt says otherwise. You aren't fooling anyone here, Supra.13

Haha, please. Try and make me mad, Epidural

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm not asking cause i want to screw animals (promise). i was just thinking... what is the reason it's not ok to screw animals again? i have heard that it is wrong because sex requires consent.. but that only applies to humans. sex with a doll for example doesn't require consent. so if sex with animals requires consent then you are extending human rights to animals. in which case we probably shouldn't be slaughtering them cause we like the way they taste, or doing experiments on them that we think it would be unethical to do to humans.

the way i look at it either animals' lives aren't worth that much so we do what we please with them or they are worthy of rights in which case we are way out of line with how we currently treat them across the board. i'm having trouble finding the middle ground where slaughtering them is fine, keeping them in captivity for entertainment is fine, injecting them with shit to see what happens is fine, but screwing them is over the line.

another possible objection i thought of is maybe we consider exploitation of animals ok depending on the objective. so we consider food (farming), sport (hunting, rodeos, etc), science (experimentation), and education (zoos and shit) to be worthy causes for animal exploitation. but exploiting them for sex is wrong for whatever reason. as for what that reason is i'm not quite sure.

thoughts?

I think I'm gonna throw up.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh right, but when he comes into other threads and bashes, thats different. I've butted **** with almost everyone on this site and I do it regularly as a hobby. I'm not defending him, I'm pointing out you're well on your way to getting banned for stalking him.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Racial slurs? Proof?
Try every post in which you make those kooky "slum dog" references, Supra.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Haha, please. Try and make me mad, Epidural
At this point, I don't even have to try. You're neck full in a lake of butthurt, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Nope, but it is based off your premise that you wouldn't mind it as long as it didn't involve harm or abuse of any kind. Tell me, do you mind human on human sex due to abuse/harm inherently involved in sex?
I think you misunderstand the argument (which I, btw, do not subscribe to). It goes like this: "Because it is impossible to have sex with an animal without abusing it, it is wrong to do it."

You are misinterpreting it to say "Because it sometimes is abusive to have sex with animals, it is wrong to do it."

Incidentally, there are actually some people that hold the former argument for human on human sex, I don't agree with that however and view them as extremists.


Originally posted by Epicurus

I already mentioned that, and you ignored it.

I saw it. My point, in reply to what you said, was however that it is not only PETA members that hold that belief.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you misunderstand the argument (which I, btw, do not subscribe to). It goes like this: "Because it is impossible to have sex with an animal without abusing it, it is wrong to do it."

You are misinterpreting it to say "Because it sometimes is abusive to have sex with animals, it is wrong to do it."

Incidentally, there are actually some people that hold the former argument for human on human sex, I don't agree with that however and view them as extremists.
But I am not doing anything of the sort. I am pointing out the inconsistency of your premise by citing bestiality porn where it is done without necessarily harming or abusing the animal in question. TBH, the very idea that the animal is always abused in such an act is a stretch.

That's not me misinterpreting your argument. That's you not not getting what I am trying to say, and I am constructing the argument in a simple enough format for you to follow easily.

Hence me bringing up human/human sex in relation to that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I saw it. My point, in reply to what you said, was however that it is not only PETA members that hold that belief.
I am not referring to the PETA post. Rather, the one before it:Originally posted by Epicurus
But anyways, bestiality in some circles is seen as bad, if not worse than pedophilia. It's doubtful it's ever going to be seen as "okay" in contemporary social circles. Heck, there are even some porn-communities which view it unfavorably.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Try every post in which you make those kooky "slum dog" references, Supra.

At this point, I don't even have to try. You're neck full in a lake of butthurt, Supra.

Slum dog is a racial slur, lmao. Quit making things up cause you don't like my name for you, Epidural.

Originally posted by Epicurus
But I am not doing anything of the sort. I am pointing out the inconsistency of your premise by citing bestiality porn where it is done without necessarily harming or abusing the animal in question. TBH, the very idea that the animal is always abused in such an act is a stretch.

We agree on this, like I said in my initial post. However there are many opponents who do think the animal is always abused (also like I said in my posts).

Originally posted by Epicurus
That's not me misinterpreting your argument. That's you not not getting what I am trying to say, and I am constructing the argument in a simple enough format for you to follow easily.

Hence me bringing up human/human sex in relation to that.

Well, actually you were misinterpreting the argument, like you just admitted yourself. You found the idea that the animal is always abused to be a stretch and hence changed the argument to follow your premise, rather than mine.



Originally posted by Epicurus
I am not referring to the PETA post. Rather, the one before it:

Yes, like I said, I saw that. But my reply was in regards to your later post and to what I actually quoted.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Slum dog is a racial slur, lmao. Quit making things up cause you don't like my name for you, Epidural.
Yes it is. You might as well call a black poster on this site the N-word and then pretend you didn't use racial slurs, Supra.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We agree on this, like I said in my initial post. However there are many opponents who do think the animal is always abused (also like I said in my posts).

Well, actually you were misinterpreting the argument, like you just admitted yourself. You found the idea that the animal is always abused to be a stretch and hence changed the argument to follow your premise, rather than mine.

Yes, like I said, I saw that. But my reply was in regards to your later post and to what I actually quoted.
And this is why I brought up the PETA thing to begin with. What opponents are these?

No, I wasn't. I questioned the very premise of your point from the beginning, and you in your inability to provide a suitable answer accused me of misinterpreting it to suit my argument. That's not how the method of debate or a formal discussion works.

And that is why I highlighted that I had already mentioned the non-PETAlite opposition to bestiality in previous posts.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Slum dog is a racial slur It is though.

Originally posted by NemeBro
It is though.

How, lol?

Originally posted by NemeBro
It is though.
It reminds me of the time when he engaged in anti-semitic rants almost a year back, and then seemed genuinely surprised when people called him out on his CBC-levels of bigotry.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not sure how I feel about people having sex with animals, I suppose it can be done without harming or abusing the animal, and in that case I guess I don't have a moral issue with it. However I would like to add to the people condemning our treatment of animals generally, I do think we should change that...cause it's terrible...

Well put.


I also think opening up the legal door to sex with animals opens up another door: sex with children.


Here's why:


Justifications for Sex With Animals (assuming the bestiality person is nice to the animals):

1. The animals enjoy it, too.
2. The animal is not physically harmed.
3. It is a positive experience for both parties.

That same list is similar to the talking points of NAMBLA (thanks, South Park). Obviously, NAMBLA's talking points are regarding children (boys), not animals, but they seem to use the same justifications.

They go a step further and believe they can claim consent (#1).


So, based on this, we must be careful not to enable pedophilia by enabling bestiality. Also, to the people using bestiality as a reason we should not allow gay marriage, I'd just point out that two or more adults can provide consent and animals and children cannot.

Originally posted by Epicurus
It reminds me of the time when he engaged in anti-semitic rants almost a year back, and then seemed genuinely surprised when people called him out on his CBC-levels of bigotry.

Wasn't me. I guess slum dog millionaire was a racist movie from you view point. You act like that guy, hence me calling you that.

I don't see a real issue of pedophilia being enabled by enabling pedophilia.


Originally posted by Epicurus
And this is why I brought up the PETA thing to begin with. What opponents are these?

No, I wasn't. I questioned the very premise of your point from the beginning, and you in your inability to provide a suitable answer accused me of misinterpreting it to suit my argument. That's not how the method of debate or a formal discussion works.

And that is why I highlighted that I had already mentioned the non-PETAlite opposition to bestiality in previous posts.

Well, no, not just members of PETA, also a subset of the other people opposed to bestiality.

But you very clearly made a different argument and then implied that I must agree with that on the same basis.

The argument I was discussing was:

All sex with animals is abuse, therefore it is wrong.

The argument you made to show that my argument could be used for humans as well was:

Some sex with humans is abuse, therefore it is wrong.

Do you not see how you are making a logical error there?

But again, like I said, I do agree that the premise of the former argument is flawed and not correct in reality. However, even if it was true, it could not be extended to humans in the way that you claimed.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Wasn't me. I guess slum dog millionaire was a racist movie from you view point. You act like that guy, hence me calling you that.
You are fooling nobody, Supra.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14552154#post14552104
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=588247&pagenumber=1#post14553042

And these are just 2 random posts from a random google search.

I haven't watched slumdog millionaire, but most of my friends consider it a racist movie, as do a number of notable Indian film-makers who have made better scripted movies about poverty in India. And nice job pretending that calling an Indian a slum dog somehow has something to do with a shitty bollywood-ripoff poverty porn movie.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, no, not just members of PETA, also a subset of the other people opposed to bestiality.

But you very clearly made a different argument and then implied that I must agree with that on the same basis.

The argument I was discussing was:

All sex with animals is abuse, therefore it is wrong.

The argument you made to show that my argument could be used for humans as well was:

Some sex with humans is abuse, therefore it is wrong.

Do you not see how you are making a logical error there?

But again, like I said, I do agree that the premise of the former argument is flawed and not correct in reality. However, even if it was true, it could not be extended to humans in the way that you claimed.
Which I mention in the original post which addresses you on this topic.

Nope, I openly challenged the premise of your argument and used the human/human sex example to further substantiate it.

I disputed the first part by citing bestial-porn, and the very notion that sex with an animal is necessarily abuse of said animal.

Nope, I am not making a logical error here. You openly state that you would be fine with bestiality if it didn't involve abuse or harm of any kind:


I point out the inconsistency of that by citing how human sex often consists of abuse and/or harm, yet you don't seem to have any issue with it.

Apart from the obvious socio-cultural taboo surrounding bestiality, I see no reason why it can't be extended to humans.

Originally posted by Epicurus
You are fooling nobody, Supra.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14552154#post14552104
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=588247&pagenumber=1#post14553042

And these are just 2 random posts from a random google search.

I haven't watched slumdog millionaire, but most of my friends consider it a racist movie, as do a number of notable Indian film-makers who have made better scripted movies about poverty in India. And nice job pretending that calling an Indian a slum dog somehow has something to do with a shitty bollywood-ripoff poverty porn movie.

Religious belief has nothing to do with Racism.

Well maybe you should watch it, you remind me of that guy.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Religious belief has nothing to do with Racism.

Well maybe you should watch it, you remind me of that guy.
Your posts clearly reeked of anti-semitism, Supra.

As I said before, you're fooling no one.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I point out the inconsistency of that by citing how human sex often consists of abuse and/or harm, yet you don't seem to have any issue with it.

Apart from the obvious socio-cultural taboo surrounding bestiality, I see no reason why it can't be extended to humans.

Again, there is a difference between "always" and "often". You are not comparing the same thing.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Religious belief has nothing to do with Racism.


I disagree. The Old Testament God was very racist against anyone who was not Jewish.

Basically, the OT was written from a Jewish-centric perspective and I personally believe much of God's will was tainted by them which is why we end up with a racist sounding God in the OT. I am not saying the OT is devoid of God, I am saying what we in have in the OT is tainted.



But the part in the OT about bestiality probably wasn't tainted.

I do not think we should have sex with animals because they cannot give informed consent like a normal adult human.


By the way, Epicurus, that is important for yours and Bardock's argument: if an adult can give informed consent in a sexual relationship, then things that are normally viewed as "abuse" are not abuse but part of the sexual pleasure (see BDSM).

This is what I think Bardy was trying to get at. If he wasn't, **** him. uhuh

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, there is a difference between "always" and "often". You are not comparing the same thing.
Nope, I am correlating the negative of your premise with my statement. Your claim is that if there were NO harm/abuse involved in human/animal sex, you wouldn't have any issues with it. I am extending this NO harm rule to human sex as well.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Your posts clearly reeked of anti-semitism, Supra.

As I said before, you're fooling no one.

Says the guy who is debating beastiality.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. The Old Testament God was very racist against anyone who was not Jewish.

Basically, the OT was written from a Jewish-centric perspective and I personally believe much of God's will was tainted by them which is why we end up with a racist sounding God in the OT. I am not saying the OT is devoid of God, I am saying what we in have in the OT is tainted.



But the part in the OT about bestiality probably wasn't tainted.

I do not think we should have sex with animals because they cannot give informed consent like a normal adult human.


By the way, Epicurus, that is important for yours and Bardock's argument: if an adult can give informed consent in a sexual relationship, then things that are normally viewed as "abuse" are not abuse but part of the sexual pleasure (see BDSM).

This is what I think Bardy was trying to get at. If he wasn't, **** him. uhuh
I understand the consent part of the argument, and that is the primary reason I believe it isn't alright for humans to copulate with animals. An animal can't communicate with a human, so it is impossible to ascertain whether it is giving its "consent" to the sex act.

However my argument with Bardock is on a different tune altogether.

Also in regards to BDSM, chances of actual abuse being perpetrated by the dom over the sub are still considerable. At least if they aren't professionally into that stuff.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Says the guy who is debating beastiality.
On a thread about bestiality. There is a difference between engaging in debate, and engaging in racist rants, Supra. Two fundamentally different terms/phrases.

Originally posted by Epicurus
On a thread about bestiality. There is a difference between engaging in debate, and engaging in racist rants, Supra. Two fundamentally different terms/phrases.

Again, prove I was on a racist rant in this thread. You can't..

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Again, prove I was on a racist rant in this thread. You can't..
I already did, brolio. Try to keep up.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I already did, brolio. Try to keep up.

You didn't, you linked some year old post about a different subject about religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You didn't, you linked some year old post about a different subject about religious beliefs.
Nope, I clearly proved that you make racial slurs and then pretend you didn't do so both back when you were officially Supra, and even now, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Nope, I am correlating the negative of your premise with my statement. Your claim is that if there were NO harm/abuse involved in human/animal sex, you wouldn't have any issues with it. I am extending this NO harm rule to human sex as well.
There again you are making a logical error.

The argument I stated was

All sex with animals is abuse, therefore it is wrong.

The negative of the premise is

Not all sex with animals is abuse (or equivalent "Some sex with animals is not abuse"

Which is the rule that exists for humans (Some sex with humans is not abuse).

Your logical error is that you think the negative premise of "All sex with animals is abuse" is "No sex with animals is abuse".

Though, I already pointed out that logical error previously, I feel like you are not likely to see it, or, at any rate, admit that you see it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There again you are making a logical error.

The argument I stated was

All sex with animals is abuse, therefore it is wrong.

The negative of the premise is

Not all sex with animals is abuse (or equivalent "Some sex with animals is not abuse)

Which is the rule that exists for humans.

Your logical error is that you think the negative premise of "All sex with animals is abuse" is "No sex with animals is abuse".

Though, I already pointed out that logical error previously, I feel like you are not likely to see it, or, at any rate, admit that you see it.
Nope, I am hinging onto your version of the negative of the argument; which is that you would have no problems with it if it didn't involve harm or abuse of any kind.

That's the point you even highlight in your original post.

Nope, I don't think that. Apparently catching "what if" vernacular is too hard for you to accomplish when dissecting someone else's post.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Nope, I clearly proved that you make racial slurs and then pretend you didn't do so both back when you were officially Supra, and even now, Supra.

Again, calling you a name from a movie title isn't a racial slur. Did you forget we are on a movie forum called KMC, Epidural?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Again, calling you a name from a movie title isn't a racial slur. Did you forget we are on a movie forum called KMC, Epidural?
This is the absolute worst form of logic I have read on this site. There are a number of movies which use the N-word liberally in both their titles and dialogue; let's go ahead and refer to black forum members as n*ggers going by this awful line of thinking. And then there is the naked anti-semitism in your previous account's posting history, Supra. Seriously, how can you be this dumb and not expect me to laugh at you like the dumb clown you are?

It's A-ok.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Nope, I am hinging onto your version of the negative of the argument; which is that you would have no problems with it if it didn't involve harm or abuse of any kind.

That's the point you even highlight in your original post.

Nope, I don't think that. Apparently catching "what if" vernacular is too hard for you to accomplish when dissecting someone else's post.

My original post was a statement as to my beliefs. I said I do not have a problem with it when it does not abuse or harm the animal.

We do not, and have not, disagreed on our opinion on the matter, I believe. The only thing I have disagreed with was your faulty line of reasoning, regarding the argument I stated (but don't personally believe to be correct).

You continue to make the same logical mistake, and I have no idea how to illustrate it to you in a third way, so I will just drop it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My original post was a statement as to my beliefs. I said I do not have a problem with it when it does not abuse or harm the animal.

We do not, and have not, disagreed on our opinion on the matter, I believe. The only thing I have disagreed with was your faulty line of reasoning, regarding the argument I stated (but don't personally believe to be correct).

You continue to make the same logical mistake, and I have no idea how to illustrate it to you in a third way, so I will just drop it.
K. Now I'll just wait while you begin to realize that literally every single post made by me in this discussion was in reference or a critique of your beliefs regarding the matter.

I am not making any mistake here. I understand your point perfectly, and have done my best to format my responses in as simplified a manner as possible. You're the one who's not getting what I am saying, and thereby deflecting the blame onto me in the form of baseless accusations of misinterpreting your stance.

We believe the same thing about the issue. So...

Originally posted by Epicurus
This is the absolute worst form of logic I have read on this site. There are a number of movies which use the N-word liberally in both their titles and dialogue; let's go ahead and refer to black forum members as n*ggers going by this awful line of thinking. And then there is the naked anti-semitism in your previous account's posting history, Supra. Seriously, how can you be this dumb and not expect me to laugh at you like the dumb clown you are?

Prove Slum Dog Millionaire reference is racist.

It clearly says in the bible what the jews did to Jesus, I never made that up, so anti-semitism point is moot. I didn't write the Bible.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Prove Slum Dog Millionaire reference is racist.

It clearly says in the bible what the jews did to Jesus, I never made that up, so anti-semitism point is moot. I didn't write the Bible.
Already did.

And here you go again, into anti-Semitic mode. Nevermind the sheer stupidity of that claim.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We believe the same thing about the issue. So...
Truce?

Originally posted by Epicurus
Already did.

And here you go again, into anti-Semitic mode. Nevermind the sheer stupidity of that claim.

You didn't, you failed again.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
You didn't, you failed again.
No more than you failed at being a horrible retard of a troll. Try this, Supra:
http://www.dollartree.com/assets/product_images/styles/large/21968.jpg
Who knows, it might just soothe the burning ache on your behind.

Originally posted by Epicurus
No more than you failed at being a horrible retard of a troll. Try this, Supra:
http://www.dollartree.com/assets/product_images/styles/large/21968.jpg
Who knows, it might just soothe the burning ache on your behind.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Truce?

It does seem like neither of us is interested in continuing the argument, so sure, why not.




Also, slumdog is obviously a racial slur when used against Indian people. I am not sure whether it is a racial slur if used within India, it may be more classist or casteist or whatever.

Tangentially related, I read a great book about a Mumbai Slum and its inhabitants, called Behind the Beautiful Forevers, I'd suggest it to everyone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It does seem like neither of us is interested in continuing the argument, so sure, why not.




Also, slumdog is obviously a racial slur when used against Indian people. I am not sure whether it is a racial slur if used within India, it may be more classist or casteist or whatever.

Tangentially related, I read a great book about a Mumbai Slum and its inhabitants, called Behind the Beautiful Forevers, I'd suggest it to everyone.

Well if it is racist, then someone should not have named a movie after it.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well if it is racist, then someone should not have named a movie after it.

While I have not seen the movie, I think it is somewhat the point, that this person of a low social and/or racial status is actually a pretty smart individual and wins millions or something.

I can understand misusing a slur, because of a misunderstanding, however after finding out that one has done so, one should definitely refrain from using it in the future.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well if it is racist, then someone should not have named a movie after it.
This blaxploitation movie uses a racial slur as part of its title:
http://goo.gl/4OqL
But it can't possibly be racist, going by your fecal line of thinking.

Originally posted by Bardock42
While I have not seen the movie, I think it is somewhat the point, that this person of a low social and/or racial status is actually a pretty smart individual and wins millions or something.

I can understand misusing a slur, because of a misunderstanding, however after finding out that one has done so, one should definitely refrain from using it in the future.

Hence why I'm not using it anymore. It's funny though, Epidural is free to name call and trash openly without excuse, but he cries about when he gets called a name.

I don't see the racial meaning behind this...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Hence why I'm not using it anymore. It's funny though, Epidural is free to name call and trash openly without excuse, but he cries about when he gets called a name.
Pointing out that you resort to racial slurs in almost every thread that you stalk me isn't me "crying" about anything. It's just me pointing out an obviously pathetic fact about you.

I could care less if you decided to unabashedly accept a racist gimmick like quanchi112 has been doing over the past week, not when it doesn't change the fact that you are mind-numbingly stupid.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I don't see the racial meaning behind this...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog
I see your point.


I do not believe "slumdog" is a racial slur, based on most of those definitions. It is a class slur that can and does apply to many races.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Pointing out that you resort to racial slurs in almost every thread that you stalk me isn't me "crying" about anything. It's just me pointing out an obviously pathetic fact about you.

I could care less if you decided to unabashedly accept a racist gimmick like quanchi112 has been doing over the past week, not when it doesn't change the fact that you are mind-numbingly stupid.

slumdog: something that's so horrifically overrated you cannot express just how underwhelmed with it you really are.



^If you consider this racist, call yourself stupid.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Hence why I'm not using it anymore. It's funny though, Epidural is free to name call and trash openly without excuse, but he cries about when he gets called a name.

Well, you are free to name-call and use racist slurs, if you so choose. I was just agreeing that "slumdog" is a racial slur.

I personally try to refrain from using slurs like that generally, I feel like it is a particular line I don't want to cross (or not cross anymore, I have changed my opinion on the subject over the last couple years)

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I don't see the racial meaning behind this...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog
When you use it as a derogatory term to refer to a person of Indian origin, it becomes racist. You're too much of a simpleton to think that urbandictionary alone is reliable enough in this case, Supra.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see your point.


I do not believe "slumdog" is a racial slur, based on most of those definitions. It is a class slur that can and does apply to many races.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
slumdog: something that's so horrifically overrated you cannot express just how underwhelmed with it you really are.



^If you consider this racist, call yourself stupid.
You do realize that term has nothing to do with either the movie Slumdog millionaire that you have brought up multiple times in this thread, nor the obviously derogatory manner in which you use it to refer to an Indian dude(namely yours truly).

Stupid doesn't even begin to describe you, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
When you use it as a derogatory term to refer to a person of Indian origin, it becomes racist. You're too much of a simpleton to think that urbandictionary alone is reliable enough in this case, Supra.

I have no clue what race you are. I don't know you from Adam, quit taking things to be more then they are. Its like you calling me stupid. Do I go and cry about it for pages?

Originally posted by Epicurus
You do realize that term has nothing to do with either the movie Slumdog millionaire that you have brought up multiple times in this thread, nor the obviously derogatory manner in which you use it to refer to an Indian dude(namely yours truly).

Stupid doesn't even begin to describe you, Supra.

Oh you mad

Look up the word and quit crying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see your point.


I do not believe "slumdog" is a racial slur, based on most of those definitions. It is a class slur that can and does apply to many races.
The term slumdog millionaire, based on which he's using this insult, is defined a number of times as being used in a derogatory manner against Indians in particular:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog%20Millionaire

This too is from urbandictionary.

Originally posted by Epicurus
The term slumdog millionaire, based on which he's using this insult, is defined a number of times as being used in a derogatory manner against Indians in particular:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog%20Millionaire

This too is from urbandictionary.

Are you and Indian child now bro? Quit trying to create sympathy through lies and manipulation.

Cry more.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh you mad

Look up the word and quit crying.
I know the word better than you do, considering the number of times it's been used in a derogatory fashion to insult Indians in general.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I have no clue what race you are. I don't know you from Adam, quit taking things to be more then they are. Its like you calling me stupid. Do I go and cry about it for pages?
Considering you're initiated the derailing of multiple threads while stalking me; I'd say yes. That and the magnitude of your butthurt enable me to give an answer in the affirmative.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Are you and Indian child now bro? Quit trying to create sympathy through lies and manipulation.

Cry more.
Read all the entries, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I know the word better than you do, considering the number of times it's been used in a derogatory fashion to insult Indians in general.

Considering you're initiated the derailing of multiple threads while stalking me; I'd say yes. That and the magnitude of your butthurt enable me to give an answer in the affirmative.



Cry more, you were proven wrong by me and other, when you are proven you wrong get mad and start screaming like a little girl

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Cry more, you were proven wrong by me and other, when you are proven you wrong get mad and start screaming like a little girl
I am thinking you're confusing yourself with me, Supra.

Can you guys go **** somewhere else? Everytime this thread is the most recently posted in one, I have to make an extra click to see if Dadudemon's ready for another ass-pounding in the Ferguson thread.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I am thinking you're confusing yourself with me, Supra.

So you are or are not a slum dog?

Slumdog:
not the best looking guy but has game and can get alot of girls
that guys a slumdog he gets baree gash doe..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Can you guys go **** somewhere else? Everytime this thread is the most recently posted in one, I have to make an extra click to see if Dadudemon's ready for another ass-pounding in the Ferguson thread.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So you are or are not a slum dog?

Slumdog:
not the best looking guy but has game and can get alot of girls
that guys a slumdog he gets baree gash doe..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog


I think you need to see a brain surgeon, Supra. Maybe get checked up for cerebral palsy?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Can you guys go **** somewhere else? Everytime this thread is the most recently posted in one, I have to make an extra click to see if Dadudemon's ready for another ass-pounding in the Ferguson thread.

This thread is better.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I think you need to see a brain surgeon, Supra. Maybe get checked up for cerebral palsy?

Oh boy, same rhetoric.

I slum slumdogged you mom last night bruh. What you have to say about that?

just posting to annoy blax

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh boy, same rhetoric.

I slum dggoded you mom last night bruh. What you have to say about that?
I wonder how your necrophiliac fetish got fulfilled in this case; my mum's ashes were disposed off a long time ago.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I wonder how your necrophiliac fetish got fulfilled in this case; my mum's ashes were disposed off a long time ago.

Oh boy look at you

You have clearly missed the whole point here as usual.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh boy look at you

You have clearly missed the whole point here as usual.
The point being that you have a necrophiliac fetish? Or it got blown back in your face when I revealed my mum got cremated a long time ago?

Or the more obvious point being that you're in desperate need of a neurosurgeon, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
The point being that you have a necrophiliac fetish? Or it got blown back in your face when I revealed my mum got cremated a long time ago?

Or the more obvious point being that you're in desperate need of a neurosurgeon, Supra.

Same old rhetoric. Its quiet old slummy.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Same old rhetoric. Its quiet old slummy.
Based on what, Supra?

Originally posted by Epicurus
Based on what, Supra?

Face it, you're Jimmies are rustled and you horrible debate lost because you clearly have missed the point entirely.

Slum Dog was not racist, and you tried to lie and manipulate to bring people to you're cause and you failed.

You have been rickrolled.

dQw4w9WgXcQ

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Face it, you're Jimmies are rustled and you horrible debate lost because you clearly have missed the point entirely.

Slum Dog was not racist, and you tried to lie and manipulate to bring people to you're cause and you failed.

You have been rickrolled.
*your

I proved my point and showcased you for the ignorant idiot that you are, Supra. Objective achieved.

Originally posted by Epicurus
*your

I proved my point and showcased you for the ignorant idiot that you are, Supra. Objective achieved.

Oh you mad, now you have gone to correcting grammar. I have destroyed you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
just posting to annoy blax http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/1401569707175_zps73ee1ab6.gif~original

You son of a *****!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh you mad, now you have gone to correcting grammar. I have destroyed you.


Your pointedly ugly butchering of the English language just screamed "save me" to me. I admit I have somewhat of a hero complex, Supra. But then again we all have our secret indulgences, like you with your necrophilia fetish.

The answer is: "no, it is not okay to screw animals".

Originally posted by Epicurus
Your pointedly ugly butchering of the English language just screamed "save me" to me. I admit I have somewhat a hero complex, Supra. But then again we all have our secret indulgences, like you with your necrophilia fetish.

Point is, you failed to turn slum dog into a racial slur and failed to get people to follow you're bs.

Me>You

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Point taken, you failed to turn slum dog into a racial slur and failed to get people to follow your bs.

Me>You


Wrong on both counts.

That's the sort of insult a a second grader would hurl at someone. You really aren't above 2nd-grade level intelligence, are you.

Well, at least this was almost as fun as the last time I demolished you prior to your permaban.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Wrong on both counts.

That's the sort of insult a a second grader would hurl at someone. You really aren't above 2nd-grade level intelligence, are you.

Well, at least this was almost as fun as the last time I demolished you prior to your permaban.

Prove I was wrong and you convinced anyone that slum dog was a racial slur.


Wait, how would a 2nd grader know of the world slum dog, quiet the contrary, they would know the word stupid. Does that mean you are a second grader because you have the vocabulary of a second grader, slummy.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Prove I was wrong and you convinced anyone that slum dog was a racial slur.
I didn't need to convince anyone. Nemebro and Bardock already admitted that slum dog when used against an Indian is a racial slur. You on the other hand only have ddm backing your selective urbandictionary definitions.

I mean this shit is obvious to anyone who's been retarded enough to follow this useless shit of an exchange, but it seems you're that special needs kinda guy who requires extra spoon feeding to make things clear, and even then fails to get it.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Wait, how would a 2nd grader know of the world slum dog, quiet the contrary, they would know the word stupid. Does that mean you are a second grader because you have the vocabulary of a second grader, slummy.
Wait, what? Seriously, what the **** are you trying to say here, Supra?

"I know you are, but what am I". Stupid is as stupid does.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I didn't need to convince anyone. Nemebro and Bardock already admitted that slum dog when used against an Indian is a racial slur. You on the other hand only have ddm backing your selective urbandictionary definitions.

I mean this shit is obvious to anyone who's been retarded enough to follow this useless shit of an exchange, but it seems you're that special needs kinda guy who requires extra spoon feeding to make things clear, and even then fails to get it.

Wait, what? Seriously, what the **** are you trying to say here, Supra?

"I know you are, but what am I". Stupid is as stupid does.

Exactly, so no proof, and is gone to second grade rhetoric with more of the stupid retorts.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Exactly, so no proof, and is gone to second grade rhetoric..
You need to give me a good reason as to why should I waste even a single more post gracing you with my attention, Supra.

Originally posted by Epicurus
You need to give me a good reason as to why should I waste even a single more post gracing you with my attention, Supra.

Cause you mad you lost bro..

Originally posted by Epicurus
The term slumdog millionaire, based on which he's using this insult, is defined a number of times as being used in a derogatory manner against Indians in particular:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Slumdog%20Millionaire

This too is from urbandictionary.


Your point is flying right over my head, sir. Here is the definition:

"A Slumdog Millionaire is when you are having sex with a girl in the ass and when you are about to cum, you pull out and cum in her purse."

haermm

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Cause you mad you lost bro..
That is not a valid reason, Supra.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Can you guys go **** somewhere else? Everytime this thread is the most recently posted in one, I have to make an extra click to see if Dadudemon's ready for another ass-pounding in the Ferguson thread.

lol!

"Slumdog" is a racial remark when used as one towards an East Indian person. Just like "Kunta Kinte" (a semi-fictional character) is a racial slur when used disparagingly towards a black man. It's the intent behind the words here, not just the words alone.