is it ok to screw animals?

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

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. 😆

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.. 😆

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.

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.

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.

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? 😆

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.

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.

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...

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.

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:

Who knows, it might just soothe the burning ache on your behind.😂

😆