is it ok to screw animals?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally posted by NemeBro
It is though.

How, lol?

Originally posted by NemeBro
It is though.

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.

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:

[b]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. [/B]

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 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

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.

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.

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. 😆