Zoophile forum

Added: Horace Touchstone - Date: 07.12.2021 09:11 - Views: 20204 - Clicks: 2253

That dogs and humans differ in cognition seems to be question-begging in regards to how we should treat them. What is the point in referencing a hierarchy of sophisticated mentation, exactly? It certainly cannot be the case that this meaningfully impacts consent given that we still treat dogs as inferior to severely retard children even when the former has higher mentation than the latter.

If we were invaded by a species from another planet far superior to us intellectually, I would be opposed to them being given the right to have sexual intercourse with whomever they pleased. And on what zoophile forum do you rest your objection? Would you likewise be against a person of high IQ having consentual sex with a person of low IQ or is your objection simply on grounds of species-ism? QQ: And on what grounds do you rest your objection? The key is consent.

It also has to do with the exploitation of power.

Zoophile forum

Animals, children and feeble-minded adults can be manipulated by people whom they depend upon, often to their own detriment. Since we are the only animals on the planet who are capable of philosophizing and considering the short and long terms consequences of our acts, the responsibility rests on us to determine our values. For this reason, I think that, in a humanitarian society, such relationships should not only be discouraged, but prohibited. Of course, there are probably exceptions. The morality of every circumstance is legislated by the conditions of that circumstance.

Perhaps there might be a loving relationship between a mentally handicapped person and their caretaker or a young man zoophile forum his terrier, but, given the risks involved as well as the obvious tendency of people to rationalize their bad behavior, I prefer to legally protect those in dependent and exploitable positions.

I wanted to put my two pennies on this since I have actually had extensive conversations with people who ONLY have sex with animals. These people call zoophile forum zoophiles, and legitimately believe that what they are engaged in is as valid a form of relationship as any between two humans. I would propose that beastiality is wrong because it is essentially an aberration of the human mind. It is a sickness, much as pedophilia, of which sufferers have no control, assuming the statistical vast majority of people with the desire to have sex with animals and children would prefer not to experience these urges contrary to social stigma.

I say this because anytime one is willing to take actions so far outside the bounds of socially accepted behavior it is clear they are driven by a compulsion. As such, I do not believe it is morally wrong. Wrong is simply a negative judgement for which there are varying degrees dependent on zoophile forum cultural and moral leanings. I do think, however, that it is a behavior that is contrary to the future and futherance of humans as a species, which is our prime directive, so to speak. It is however common to see individuals with specific mental defects engage in behaviors which are contrary to this directive.

One must also consider that engaging in emotionally based behaviors with animals is a poor substitute for human connection, and the punishment as such, is that those who practice unsustainable ways of life are destined to lose out though natural selection. A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices.

Zoophile forum

Your arguments were well-reasoned and sensible. In other words, boring. It was these few sentences that made me sit up a little straighter in my chair. Were they in a group or was it one by one? Are there zoophile bar? Oh no…they have websites with forums? I was a part of a community that had a certain percentage of members with certain known zoophile forum.

I interacted with them as a group and also individually, more out of my own sense of curiosity about what makes people tick than anything else. I actually enjoy talking to people and finding out what their reasons are for things, lol, part of what makes me who I am I guess. The community I was a part of was an online one, I never met them in person, but knew most of them for over a year.

We already subject animals to the kind of abuse that completely obviates any notion of rights or the necessity of consent. If animals were intelligent enough to give their informed consent, I imagine most would rather endure rape than being slaughtered.

How exactly is it incompatible with such a system. What risks? Of course people can always rationalize things, but it seems you seem to be doing the same. What are you protecting them from exaclty? That would be like making a blanket prohibition on zoophile forum simply because there are instances of homosexual rape in prisons. I would argue that the sentiment that since we already do it, fuck it, is not a logical or supportable argument for any action. I would further submit for consideration zoophile forum anyone interested in serious debate on this topic, or anything related to animal rights consider their presuppositions.

If animals were intelligent enough? The fact that animals do indeed possess intelligence is a fact backed by empirical data. Their intelligence measured by our quotients cannot be said to be a true measure of their level of intelligence. The basic laws of thermodynamics and fundamentals of systems theory tell us that you cannot view or diagnose a system from without of that system, and it follows that any attempt to judge non-human intelligence by the standards of human intelligence is an exercise in folly.

Moreover, I would further contend that the genetic similarity between human beings and any host of animal species precludes the presupposition that animals are incapable of emotions or feelings. While empirical data is completely inconclusive on the subject of animal emotion and feeling, I again point to the fact that judging the expression and measurement of emotions in non-humans is simply not possible given that we lack the ability to measure such in terms that are meaningful for that species.

All study and conjecture on the animal brain is subjective in nature, and because of the lack of communication, cannot ever be truly affirmed. I point as an example here to the zoophile forum of lorenzini. A sensory organ of sharks, it works by measuring minute electric impulses through a sensory organ on the nose of a shark. As a human, how are we capable of understanding how the shark measures and feels with this organ. Being that we lack itwe can never understand what the sensation of using the organ is like. To say we understand the way in which any species other than ourself processes feelings and experiences them is a lie.

The fact that evolution shows our divergence from common ancestors means that some critical lower brain function carries over. For this fact there is absolutely empirical data. I would argue that as a function of interaction between the lower and higher brain functions, emotion is not only possibly in animals, IMO it is likely.

Assuming animals are animals and they are dumb sets us all on par with the religious folk. Rather, I brought this fact up to highlight the inconsistency in holding these positions. We slaughter animals for food.

Zoophile forum

That cognitive dissonance should be addressed thoughtfully, and most people simply submit ad hoc reasoning to rationalize out of it. I said intelligent enough….

Zoophile forum

Thus, given this reality, the zoophile forum becomes how do we proceed for here? Animals give us an analogue to consent in many ways, as I described in my very first post, and we infer pleasure and comfort from this. The people in this thread have merely asserted without any good justification that all of bestiality is by its nature detrimental and then go on to establish it as immoral. The rest of your post is propping up a strawman as I was in no way making a case for animal cruelty nor arguing that animals have no emotion or mentation.

Eating animals is not necessarily something to feel guilty about. Supporting inhumane slaughter could be. Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is. Ludwig Wittgenstein. In any event, the point is inconsequential.

The problem with many of the responses in this thread is that it is assumed, without providing any justification, that bestiality as a whole is injurous to animals such that it should zoophile forum deemed immoral. The typical line of reasoning by many here is to single out instances where it would be horrible and then conclude that its entirety is immoral. That is akin to claiming homosexual sex is immoral because homosexual rape exists and is terrible. Some animals would be injured—whether physically or mentally—by being sexually used by a person. That makes it reasonable to outlaw in my opinion.

Toggle SamHarris. Welcome Guest Register. What is wrong with bestiality? Posted: 27 March Image Attachments. Posted: 28 March Damn…now I am going to have to google something that makes me feel ill. My time is limited. Posted: 30 March Select A Theme Developer Default.

Zoophile forum

email: [email protected] - phone:(697) 706-5921 x 2737

What is Bestiality?