Should zoosexuality be legal?

[kobidobidog]

The cruelty is being done to the zoo, and unwittingly to the soul of the condemner. do unto others will apply to the one condemning. Don't want to have your body, and soul turned to ashes when God judges the living,and the dead, and you will legalize zoo, and hug instead of hate wishing ill will to your neighbor.

[The Mikado]

You registered for this site to defend zoophilia.  You have no posts in any thread except this one.  You have the word "dog" in your name.

[Lief]

Surely the animal is giving consent if it is a male animal entering a female (or male if you want to do that) human. In which case that should be fine, yes?

Really our laws regarding treatment of animals are contradictory, arbitrarily decided and don't really make any sense.

[Grumps]

You registered for this site to defend zoophilia.  You have no posts in any thread except this one.  You have the word "dog" in your name.

What's interesting, Mikado, is his email pops up a real FB page.......so he's probably not a sock.  Go figure.

[Joe Republic]

What's interesting, Mikado, is his email pops up a real FB page.

Does it show him wearing a furry costume?

[For Oklahoma]

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Kobidobidog

It appears we have an internet star amongst us.

[Grumps]

What's interesting, Mikado, is his email pops up a real FB page.

Does it show him wearing a furry costume?

I don't know......the profile pic is a dog.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

(Trying really hard to hijack this abortion of a discussion)

Uhh....is sex with an Alien or humainoid alien bestiality?

(/Trying really hard to hijack this abortion of a discussion)

[CitizenX]

No, you can't have sex with a living thing you can't get consent from.

     Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you eat animal meat as part of your diet. Clearly that would indicate that you do not think they are subject to the non-aggression axiom. If aggression against animals is not wrong & killing them for food is permissible, then why would sexual activity with animals be wrong?

Would you rather be killed then eaten or ph-cked in the @$$ then killed and eaten.  Obviously the being ph-cked in the @$$ thing adds a whole other dimension to the scenario.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

No, you can't have sex with a living thing you can't get consent from.

     Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that you eat animal meat as part of your diet. Clearly that would indicate that you do not think they are subject to the non-aggression axiom. If aggression against animals is not wrong & killing them for food is permissible, then why would sexual activity with animals be wrong?

Would you rather be killed then eaten or ph-cked in the @$$ then killed and eaten.  Obviously the being ph-cked in the @$$ thing adds a whole other dimension to the scenario.

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

[The Mikado]

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Kobidobidog

It appears we have an internet star amongst us.

I don't approve of their redesign.

[Grumps]

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Kobidobidog

It appears we have an internet star amongst us.

I don't approve of their redesign.

Ugh, I wish I hadn't clicked on that.

[CitizenX]

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.

     It is a concern in regards to myself & other humans. To anthropomorphize does not extend my concern beyond those bounds. Earlier in this topic I made the argument against extending legal protections to animals.

     I am not advocating any alternative lifestyle, & I would prefer to not be mischaracterized in such a fashion. Rather, I am arguing against its illegality. Besides, lack of necessity is always the weakest argument against legalization, because many things are non-necessary & still legal. I suppose there is a point to make that proscription becomes an entertainable hypothesis in the case of non-necessity, but the idea that proscription being entertainable means that it should be entertained is a rather large leap. Movies are non-essential to our health, yet hardly anyone would advocate banning them.

     Even if we were to assume that it was ethically sound for the government to concern itself with any random aspect of people's lives, it is hardly worth the resources to punish all perpetrators of all things that are dictated crimes. In the grand scheme of things, I regard dog-****ing as being a rather minor issue, at least when compared to crimes perpetrated against humans.

[CitizenX]

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.

     It is a concern in regards to myself & other humans. To anthropomorphize does not extend my concern beyond those bounds. Earlier in this topic I made the argument against extending legal protections to animals.

     I am not advocating any alternative lifestyle, & I would prefer to not be mischaracterized in such a fashion. Rather, I am arguing against its illegality. Besides, lack of necessity is always the weakest argument against legalization, because many things are non-necessary & still legal. I suppose there is a point to make that proscription becomes an entertainable hypothesis in the case of non-necessity, but the idea that proscription being entertainable means that it should be entertained is a rather large leap. Movies are non-essential to our health, yet hardly anyone would advocate banning them.

     Even if we were to assume that it was ethically sound for the government to concern itself with any random aspect of people's lives, it is hardly worth the resources to punish all perpetrators of all things that are dictated crimes. In the grand scheme of things, I regard dog-****ing as being a rather minor issue, at least when compared to crimes perpetrated against humans.

Well you've called this lifestyle an "issue" and a "concern."  Movies are indeed for the most part nonessential.   But they are not an "issue" or "concern" and therefor not in the same category as this lifestyle.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you should get a life sentence for doing it.  A fine, probation, or brief incarceration at a minimum security facility might be enough to do the job common sense clearly didn't do for these people.  And you can escalate it.  Maybe a fine and the issue is permanently dropped from their record if they don't re-offend during the next 3yrs.  If they repeat maybe a fine and probation.  Something like that.

The other thing is the law can me enforced if the police stumble across it or you report your neighbor, but there shouldn't be millions of dollars in police resources spent chasing people all over the place.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.

     It is a concern in regards to myself & other humans. To anthropomorphize does not extend my concern beyond those bounds. Earlier in this topic I made the argument against extending legal protections to animals.

     I am not advocating any alternative lifestyle, & I would prefer to not be mischaracterized in such a fashion. Rather, I am arguing against its illegality. Besides, lack of necessity is always the weakest argument against legalization, because many things are non-necessary & still legal. I suppose there is a point to make that proscription becomes an entertainable hypothesis in the case of non-necessity, but the idea that proscription being entertainable means that it should be entertained is a rather large leap. Movies are non-essential to our health, yet hardly anyone would advocate banning them.

     Even if we were to assume that it was ethically sound for the government to concern itself with any random aspect of people's lives, it is hardly worth the resources to punish all perpetrators of all things that are dictated crimes. In the grand scheme of things, I regard dog-****ing as being a rather minor issue, at least when compared to crimes perpetrated against humans.

Well you've called this lifestyle an "issue" and a "concern."  Movies are indeed for the most part nonessential.   But they are not an "issue" or "concern" and therefor not in the same category as this lifestyle.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you should get a life sentence for doing it.  A fine, probation, or brief incarceration at a minimum security facility might be enough to do the job common sense clearly didn't do for these people.  And you can escalate it.  Maybe a fine and the issue is permanently dropped from their record if they don't re-offend during the next 3yrs.  If they repeat maybe a fine and probation.  Something like that.

The other thing is the law can me enforced if the police stumble across it or you report your neighbor, but there shouldn't be millions of dollars in police resources spent chasing people all over the place.

     Some cinematic content is a concern, though. Perhaps video games, particularly violent ones, would be a better example.

     While I am reticent to enshrine any such notion as animal rights in the law, making it a minor offense would be an acceptable compromise to me. Sort of like how marijuana possession is the lowest priority offense in San Francisco.

[Joe Republic]

Given our new furry friend's attempt at biblical justification, I actually can't wait for jmfcst to get here.

[CitizenX]

     If I'm going to be killed & eaten, then being raped is something of a secondary concern. That aside, my point there was that if you think killing & eating an animal is alright, I find it slightly odd to take a moral stance against having sex with it. The sex part would likely cause it discomfort, but the animals that get turned into our food lead highly miserable lives.

Yes but its still a concern.

It is difficult for most omnivirous Americans to get all the nutrients they need as is.  People's knowledge of nutrition is appauling.  Do you really think the average American can properly implement a vegetarian diet?  From a public health point of view an omnivorous lifestyle is essential.  I don't think the same can be said for the alternative lifestyle you are advocating.

     It is a concern in regards to myself & other humans. To anthropomorphize does not extend my concern beyond those bounds. Earlier in this topic I made the argument against extending legal protections to animals.

     I am not advocating any alternative lifestyle, & I would prefer to not be mischaracterized in such a fashion. Rather, I am arguing against its illegality. Besides, lack of necessity is always the weakest argument against legalization, because many things are non-necessary & still legal. I suppose there is a point to make that proscription becomes an entertainable hypothesis in the case of non-necessity, but the idea that proscription being entertainable means that it should be entertained is a rather large leap. Movies are non-essential to our health, yet hardly anyone would advocate banning them.

     Even if we were to assume that it was ethically sound for the government to concern itself with any random aspect of people's lives, it is hardly worth the resources to punish all perpetrators of all things that are dictated crimes. In the grand scheme of things, I regard dog-****ing as being a rather minor issue, at least when compared to crimes perpetrated against humans.

Well you've called this lifestyle an "issue" and a "concern."  Movies are indeed for the most part nonessential.   But they are not an "issue" or "concern" and therefor not in the same category as this lifestyle.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you should get a life sentence for doing it.  A fine, probation, or brief incarceration at a minimum security facility might be enough to do the job common sense clearly didn't do for these people.  And you can escalate it.  Maybe a fine and the issue is permanently dropped from their record if they don't re-offend during the next 3yrs.  If they repeat maybe a fine and probation.  Something like that.

The other thing is the law can me enforced if the police stumble across it or you report your neighbor, but there shouldn't be millions of dollars in police resources spent chasing people all over the place.

     Some cinematic content is a concern, though. Perhaps video games, particularly violent ones, would be a better example.

     While I am reticent to enshrine any such notion as animal rights in the law, making it a minor offense would be an acceptable compromise to me. Sort of like how marijuana possession is the lowest priority offense in San Francisco.

Well I think that's the point.  Government serves a role but obviously nowadays it is overreaching.  Government action is not currently governed by good scientific or sociological data.  Someone wakes up one day and blames everything on drugs.  We then proceed in a completely unscientific manner to wreak havoc domestically and abroad and end up with as many drug addicts as we had before.

Marijuana should be totally legal.  It should be up to schools and employers to drug test if they want to and come up with their own penalties.  But we should not me spending billions locking up nonviolent recreational pot smokers.  Its a total waste of money and an extreme overreach by federal and local government.

[The Mikado]

Is it bad that I find CitizenX nearly as weird in manner as the dogf**ker?

[realisticidealist]

Is it bad that I find CitizenX nearly as weird in manner as the dogf**ker?

He has a bold fetish.

[bgwah]

[Jackson]

Delete this thread, and nothing of value would be lost.

[Vasall des Midas]

So... peeps... the question has to be asked... what about animals having sex with other animals? As in, animals of other species?

I'd seen this one before, as a gif and somewhat shorter IIRC, but I gotta say, I'm surprised just how effing much bun-on-kitty action there is on youtube. So... do you agree that this rabbit is indeed consenting to zoosexual acts?

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Kobidobidog

It appears we have an internet star amongst us.

Oh my. The plot thickens.

[realisticidealist]

I like how one of kobi's arguments is that "if the animal doesn't fight back, it must be consenting". By that logic...