There are many things that any of us can choose to do. However, that does not mean you need to do it because you can. Therapy and self control would do you wonders. This is not a "healthy orientation."
@realestatecathy There are many things that I could do, but I don't do them because I have no reason to.
What makes you think that I am "choosing" to be a zoophile?
Furthermore, what makes you think I have no self control? Please take a look at the comments of this video. There, you will see the angry masses raging against me and insulting me. And there you will see an example of my self control: where I stay calm and act with reason, rather than anger.
@realestatecathy Furthermore, what research has been done into zoophilia has suggested that trying to "treat" zoophilia is the same as trying to "treat" homosexuality. In both cases, there is very little success, if any, and the therapy is often destructive to the individual's mental state.
I've known many dogs that consented to having sex with me. I wasn't interested, so had to disappoint them. Seems domestic dogs very commonly are sexually attracted to humans.
And I know it makes it a bit harder to read. I should have tried harder to find something that worked better together, but, it's up, and not much I can do about it anymore.
And consent? The body language argument is such bullshit.
Humans consent using body language ALL THE TIME. TRUE. But consent between two+ humans of comparable intelligence, excluding variability of individual intelligence (referencing the capacity of the human species), is TRUE consent.
@pacers3115 Why are you excluding variability of human intelligence? Einstein was far more intelligent than his wife, and yet if they had sex, I doubt you would call it immoral.
Next, what makes you think that animals cannot comprehend the act of sex? Round hole, round peg. Not that difficult to understand.
Also, most humans don't understand sex very well. A biologist has far greater knowledge of sex than a lay person. Should biologists not be allowed to reproduce with lay people?
@IncurableHeathen You don't understand. We ignore the variability of human intelligence (1) because the differences are statistically insignificant when compared with the variability of intelligence between species. Einstein's intelligence, for example, is on par with other humans EXCEPT for math and physics. But we are discussing intelligence of social relations. Animals DO NOT have the social intelligence (or otherwise) of our species. This is a very simple concept you choose to disregard.
@pacers3115 I think this is the crux of the issue. I don't see why you think that variability of intelligence has anything to do with it in the first place. Animals can consent with each other. They have the intelligence to understand that. What part of sex with a human is so much more complex than sex with a member of their same, or similar, species that they would be suddenly unable to comprehend it?
Furthermore, animals, especially pack animals, do have a significant social IQ.
@IncurableHeathen (2) Humans display AND can communicate complex emotions. For example, you could describe your body language if asked. If two humans between cultures, not speaking the same language, show attraction and commit to sex - you can be sure they have the cognitive ability to truly comprehend the act. Animals don't.
@pacers3115 There's a problem with your logic here. You seem to be only considering voluntary body language. There is a certain amount of voluntary body language, but much is not voluntary, and you may not be able to explain it without the proper scientific background.
For example. Lets say you are talking to someone who you like. Your eyes may dilate in response, and subconsciously, they may register that as a sign of attraction, although neither of you may consciously recognize it
@pacers3115 That is merely an example. There are many involuntary signs of emotion and intent that a person may not know they are doing in the first place, and many more actions that are technically voluntary but nonetheless subconscious (like running one's hand through their hair).
@IncurableHeathen (3) Even the simplest humans are BILLIONS (+/-) years beyond the equivalent natural development of intelligence for animals. We can even view humans with mental retardation (and the rare relationship with someone who is not retarded). I view this strange, because similarly they are not processing emotions/ideas/anything at the same level. Yet, being with animals is far worse.Even mentally challenged humans have the CAPACITY for HUMAN intelligence. Animals are not close.
@pacers3115 Also, you are wrong. Humans have an increased brain size, but it is not by billions of years that we are separated from other animals.
The largest section of our brain growth occurred from 1.7 million years to the present. However, that is still misleading, as much of our intelligence and civilization is cultural in origin. And that, my friend, is only about 50 thousand years old.
@pacers3115 So no matter how you look at it, you are off by at least three orders of magnitude, possibly four or five. And that's only looking at average humans, not the "simplest humans" as you suggest.
Furthermore, you say that mentally challenged humans have the capacity for human intelligence. I don't know what you mean. They are not nearly as intelligent as the average human. Their genetic makeup or their formation is such that they could not be equal in intelligence to others.
@pacers3115 I am open to changing my mind if you present a logical argument. However I have heard this particular argument many times, and I fail to see how it has any relevance.
Yes, non-human animals are less intelligent than humans. Perhaps even drastically so. So what? I don't see how that matters. Whether or not they can make a blueprint for a house or evaluate an integral seems to me to have nothing to do with whether or not they have the capacity to enjoy sexual activity.
@IncurableHeathen Look, you are really reaching, now. If you don't automatically know the difference between Einstein and his wife & a human and a dog, I cannot help you. If you can't tell the difference between your cognitive ability and that of a dog, I cannot help you. Look, if you post this "logical" video, at least trying to be logical, then you have to be open to changing in the face of logical arguments. There is no justification for your side except selfishness.
Here is something that is not a myth. The difference in mental capacity between humans and any other organism is incomparable. Having sex with animals that are unable to logically comprehend the act in which they are partaking is wrong and selfish. Humans are not simply animals. We have developed intelligence.
Until I remember where I've seen your name before, I am going to assume I saw it on a zoophile-oriented site, asking for hardcore horse porn. Because when I read your name, that is what I am reminded of for some reason.
I don't know anything about goats personally. But if the goat in question is large enough for sexual contact and consents to such contact, then you could say I am pro-goat banging I guess.
You seem like an incredibly intelligent person. You debate well and your arguments are sound. You surely knew this video would spark controversy, but you posted it anyway. I commend you.
@DracoAzule Well actually, they can vocalize if they don't want sex, by barking, growling, whining, or any number of other "unhappy" sounds.
Furthermore, there is plenty of body language that they can use to show they don't want sex. In the case of dogs: not flagging, moving away from the person, turning around, putting their ears back against there heads, and, as mentioned before, there's the vocalization.
So yes, in fact, animals can show when they don't want sex.
@IncurableHeathen That plus animals are easier to get to than human girls. Which is probably why every zoophile I've seen is a fat fuck looser without a girlfriend.
@DracoAzule My boyfriend is in pretty good shape and an honors student. He's a zoo, but he's dating me, so I'm not sure your use of absolutes based on personal experience is a sound way to argue.
@checkmclassics I have never had sex before. I am a virgin. However, when I do have sex, I plan to have sex with a non-human animal as opposed to a human.
@checkmclassics Because I am not attracted to humans, whereas I am attracted to animals. Furthermore, as far as emotional connection goes, I can get a lot closer to an animal like a dog than to a human.
@checkmclassics I disagree. I think that, while not all, many dogs would be very happy to have sex with a human.
Animals are sexual opportunists. They enjoy whatever form of sex they can get. If they can get sex with a human, they not only will enjoy it, but will often actively seek it out.
Sometimes they seek it out even when they don't know they can get it. Hence, leg humping.
humans have the ability to think and reason. do animals? no. I believe one of your myths should say that.
The entire purpose of sex is to procreate. That's it. Although it is a pleasurable experience, its main function is not for pleasure...it's for procreating. When animals and humans can successfully procreate, I will take this video seriously.
@pitt234567 You don't think animals are capable of thinking and reasoning?
Well, that's easy enough to disprove. Have a video doing just that:
watch?v=0jF_0tZdbqo
As for sex being just about procreation... Well, sorry to say this, but a good portion of the animal kingdom would disagree with you. Many animals have sex which cannot result in procreation, and many have sex for reasons obviously distinct from procreation.
Do you need me to list off some examples for you? I'll do so gladly.
@pitt234567 I never said that they have the same mental capacity as humans. That is a strawman argument.
You said that animals don't have the ability to think and reason. I provided a link to show that they do. Not that they have the same mental capacity as humans.
Such a claim would be ridiculous, as even between humans, mental capacities can vary vastly.
Please try to address my actual argument, rather than attacking a strawman.
@IncurableHeathen So what is your argument? That animals can think? Let me start over. My whole point originally was to show that, as humans, we have a much higher intellect than other animals. We know what is right and what is wrong to a much greater degree. This is what is wrong with society today. If people want to do something (like have sex with a dog), they do it. As a human, you should know that the true purpose of sex is procreation, not pleasure.
@pitt234567 You stated that animals cannot think. Therefore, I felt obligated to prove you wrong. If you didn't want me to prove that animals think, you shouldn't have stated that they do not.
Your argument seems to be a bit fragmented. Are you arguing because we are smarter than animals, it is wrong to have sex with them? Or because animals are not intelligent, it's wrong to have sex with them (there is a distinct difference)?
@pitt234567 (continued) Or are you arguing some other point? You haven't really made it clear.
Furthermore, you seem to be begging the question. The debate is about whether or not having sex with an animal is wrong, and it seems that you are assuming it is wrong as part of your evidence for why it is wrong.
Furthermore, you've said this twice now: you think sex is about procreation not pleasure. Let me address that misconception in full.
@pitt234567 First of all, the animal kingdom disagrees with you by it's very actions. Many animals have sex in nonproductive ways.
This is just off the top of my head, and by no means a complete list:
Bats have been observed giving each other oral sex, penguins, rams, and dogs have been shown to be homosexual, dolphins have been shown to engage in oral sex, nasal sex, and homosexual sex. Dogs, Kangaroos, and Ferrets have been observed to masturbate.
@pitt234567 (continued) Dogs, Chimps, Seals, and Rabbits, have all been observed to participate in cross-species sex, even cross-class sex. Ducks have been observed to engage in sex with corpses.
Why do these various animals have unproductive sex? For pleasure. But let me go even a bit further.
What other purposes are there for sex? Because, while I've shown that animals have sex for reasons other than procreation, that hasn't yet shown that the purpose of sex is other than procreation.
@pitt234567 (continued) Sexual activity is for social bonding.
Bonobos show this the best. Bonobos work out their problems, bond with newcomers, and keep up tribe bonds through sexual activity. But many species do have sex as a form of bonding. If sex was not for the purpose of bonding as well as procreation, adultery would not be frowned upon in our society.
(I'd also like to note that there are other uses for sex. For example, penguins use a form of prostitution to get help building nests)
@pitt234567 (continued) Finally, let's get down to the real crux of the issue. Even though I think I've shown that your statements are factually inaccurate, it doesn't actually matter.
Because using something for something besides it's intended purpose is part of intellect.
I have here a wooden spoon. The purpose of wood is to provide structure and height to a tree.
Does that make my wooden spoon "wrong"? I'm using the material for something besides it's intended purpose.
@pitt234567 Perhaps you think that isn't a good example. After all, the spoon, while originally wood was then crafted into something with a new purpose. Then let's say someone was having a seizure. I used the spoon to keep them from biting their tongue, by putting it between their jaws.
Now I am not using the spoon for either the intended purpose when created by the tree or the intended purpose when made into a spoon.
Is it wrong to use it in that way? Should I not have used it that way?
@pitt234567 So! To sum everything up: 1) Animals have sex for reasons other than procreation. 2) Sex has more purposes than procreation. 3) Even if both 1 and 2 were not true, that would still not make sex for pleasure wrong.
I'd also like to ask, out of curiosity, are you also against birth control?
@IncurableHeathen then please, in a scientific manner, explain the purposes of sex. If you can give me a purpose that is as important or is as closely linked as procreation, you win.
@pitt234567 I said this earlier, didn't I? Pleasure and social bonding.
Also, you seem to be committing the moving goalpost fallacy. At first you seemed to be saying that procreation is the only purpose, and how that I've shown earlier in the conversation the other purposes, you are demanding a purpose that is as important as procreation.
All this, and you still haven't shown why, even if procreation was the only inherent purpose of sex, it would make sex for other reasons wrong.
@pitt234567 (continued) Also, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but "importance" is a subjective criteria. Important to what?
I mean, for the continuation of the species, procreation is obviously the most important aspect.
But most creatures don't have the continuation of the species in mind when having sex. To an individual, the most important aspect of sexual activity is pleasure. Why do you think contraception is such a big and prevalent business?
I am not going to discriminate you for your "Fetish" but I have to say comparing killing animals to food and having sex with animals is stupid. It isn't hypocrisy to eat meat and be against beastiality because they're two completely different things. Also, Killing animals of food isn't necessary but practical because most people in the world eat some form of meat and besides we aren't the ones killing them.
@robzombiefann Killing animals for food, and yet arguing that zoophilia is wrong because animals can't consent is hypocritical though. It's the argument that makes it hypocritical, not the stance itself.
To put it another way, killing animals for food ignores their consent. To argue that consent is necessary would mean that killing animals for food is wrong, since consent isn't obtained. Thus, if one eats meat while arguing in favor of consent, they hold contrary opinions, hence, hypocrites.
@robzombiefann Two other things. One, saying that most of the world eats meat is an appeal to common practice, and is a logical fallacy. I personally think that most of the world is in error on this particular issue.
Second, again, I don't consider zoophilia a fetish, I consider it an orientation.
Nonetheless, I thank you for your intent not to discriminate. It is appreciated.
@DoctorHver From my limited experience on this planet, I would say that statistics are not "lies", just a type of information that the majority of people don't know how to properly interpret.
Plus, I don't think I relied too heavily on statistics in this video anyway.
People who try to justify zoo sex is the same as trying to justify pedophilia. Members of the "man boy love" sex club basically believe and say the same thing. I'm amazed with just about every single child porn arrest, bestiality images and videos are also part of the perverted collection, sometimes children even being made to have sex with animals.
Hmm. That was rather interesting. Haha yeah, even some Animals want to have sex with us! lol great example is a dog. But in any case, if i were to say stay with your own species i'd be Hippocratic cause.. Ohh it would be so cool to diddle an Alien race! You have my support, just wait and have patiance.
@IncurableHeathen yeah no problem, people can be such assholes GOD FORBID IF YOUR DIFFERENT RIGHT? lmao no lets face it, I believe in god, I do. I don't however believe he has ANYTHING against Zoophiles, gays, bisexuals, pedophiles, murderers, politiciatns, etc. only our society does ergo bein this is such a "Perfect" society, most believe that god "Demands" perfection. lol what a load of shit, he created us in his image right? sais it right in the bible. in other words what does that mean? lol!
@IncurableHeathen lol sorry to be off topic like that, i just think its hilarious. anyway keep holding in there, your not alone. dont listen to these assholes their still very primitive living by societies rules lmao and yes i eat desert before my main course. what happened to the rebels i miss them. woo! even gays hate bisexuals wtf? lmao fuck you gay guys and women and straight guys and women. i'm bisexual and i LIKE both! haha XD i'm buzzed
@YellowMTP Wow. So people who don't agree with fucking animals are primitive and slaves to society for not accepting it as a lifestyle, but you have all the freedom in the world to call them primitive and assholes, or say "fuck gay people because I'm bi".
@Clawdragoons im just saying that when people incorporate sexuality into places it doesnt belong you get these types of problems. Animal lovers become zoophiles, people who are fond of children become pedophiles, and enviornmentalists become dentrophiles. what people should do is limit the apreciation of certain things to just emotional or platonic love. not sexuality
@extremeeXrement1 And everyone with same gender friends is automatically a homosexual, since homosexuality has been accepted?
Yeah, no, that hasn't happened.
Also, your argument seems a bit circular. You are saying that people shouldn't incorporate sexuality into places it doesn't belong, because it doesn't belong there.
Zoophilia seems to be an orientation. Regardless of social acceptance, there will be zoophiles, and there will be (the majority of) people who are not.
@Clawdragoons ex in one case a horse was psychologically damaged. it was famas and the video of the horse fuckin a dude was a well known shock video called mr. hands years latter the horse was seen and was expirenceing psychological issues. it was all in the documentary "Zoo". plus i can ask a person "have you been tested, or do you have aids" Animals cant and i can be sure whether my partner has aids. an animal cant and cannot avoid contracting aids
@extremeeXrement1 Are you suggesting that nonhuman animals are susceptible to HIV? Do you know what HIV stands for? It's the HUMAN Immunodeficiency Virus. An animal cannot get HIV from a human. HIV does not survive in their bodies.
Also, yes, there are cases where animals are physically or psychologically harmed by sex. That is irrelevant. There are also cases where humans are physically or psychologically harmed by sex.
Cruel or non-consensual sex acts should still be illegal.
@extremeeXrement1 Just as they are between humans. Intercourse which is neither cruel, nor non-consensual should not be illegal.
I've heard of Mr. Hands. However, it is not a good example for a few reasons. First, the horse was not his own. If I remember correctly, the horse was part of a "sex farm" of sorts. Something I am vigorously against. Second, it is a single example, and not representative.
@extremeeXrement1 To put it another way, using the Mr. Hands incident as an argument against zoophilia is similar to using Jeffrey Dahmer as an argument against sex with humans.
@Clawdragoons well not really in mr. hands the horse fucked him animals are like people and they can suffer psychological consiquences for things that they did and enjoyed. the horse really did enjoy it if not it wouldnt have mounted him
@extremeeXrement1 But the horse was part of a sex ranch. He could very well have been mistreated in any number of ways that had nothing to do with sex. That's why I want I'd like a source. I see no reason to suggest that the reason the horse had psychological damage (if the horse indeed had psychological damage in the first place) is due to the Mr Hands incident.
Furthermore, I have seen some news articles suggest that an animal is psychologically damaged BECAUSE it would have sex with humans.
Animals have sex with other animals /within their own species/, for purpose of reproduction. When it is not for purpose of reproduction, it is in animals used to assert dominance. Asserting dominance over a creature with lesser mental faculties than your own = rape.
@Technyndriakh Actually, you are incorrect. Animals have sex outside of their species fairly often. As I have listed earlier in the comments sections here, interspecies sex has been observed to occur in a wide variety of animals, ranging from seals and penguins, to rabbits and chickens, to different species of bears.
Furthermore, animals do seem to have sex for pleasure. This is well documented in animals like dolphins and bonobos, but has also been observed in a variety of other species.
@Technyndriakh The two ways that I know of that sex has been shown to be not simply for the purpose of procreation are, one, observation of non-productive sexual acts in the animal kingdom, and two, administration of dopamine (the chemical responsible for sexual pleasure) blocking drugs to lab animals and recording changes in their sexual activity.
In the former, sexual activity in dopamine-blocked animals drops significantly, suggesting that pleasure is at least a very important sex motivator.
@Technyndriakh For the former, the list of nonproductive sexual acts in the animal kingdom is quite vast. Most obviously is homosexuality, which occurs in a large number of mammals at a decent rate. However, masturbation has been observed as well (off the top of my head, dogs, various apes, and ferrets have been observed to masturbate).
Autofellatio has been observed in kangaroos and perhaps other species.
Oral sex has been observed in dolphins, apes, bats, and perhaps others.
@Technyndriakh And, of course, as listed earlier, interspecies sex has been observed in a variety of animals, and is a form of nonproductive sex.
And, of course, humans ARE animals.
Finally, your argument is flawed, in that you argue that animals use sex to assert dominance, asserting dominance via sex is rape, with an implied conclusion that sex with animals is rape.
@Technyndriakh However, that conclusion could only be supported by the premise that the reason humans have sex with animals is to assert dominance. The premise you supplied (which I argued with anyway) is that nonhuman animals have sex to assert dominance, not that human animals do.
Unless you are arguing that humans do not have sex for pleasure, your argument is invalid, since your conclusion does not follow from the premises.
@Technyndriakh Judge yourself. How many times must I have to say this to whoever so whoever will win an eternal prize in a finite life time. One human that dies cannot make themselves better than another human animal that dies by trying to put another human animal that dies down. Attempting to do that is the same thing a bully does. Do you agree?
You could use any of the arguments in this video to condone rape or pedophilia of any other variety, it is disgusting for the same reasons. I suppose a human in a vegetative state, retarded or a child unable to comprehend sex has the brain chemicals required to "experience pleasure", and is incapable of dissenting, makes it perfectly acceptable to fuck them.
@Technyndriakh I have never made the argument that lack of dissent is all that is required for sexual activity. Positive consent to the action is required. My argument isn't "animals can't dissent, therefore you can have sex with them". My argument is "animals can consent, therefore, if they consent, you may have sex with them". I have also explained how animals can consent, in the video and elsewhere, by discussing body language.
The rest of the video was dispelling myths not directly related.
@Technyndriakh In your examples, consent is not given, and thus they are not comparable to zoophilia.
The debate we are in is about whether or not animals can consent. To make the comparison, you assume they cannot, and then use the comparison as reasoning for why they cannot.
That is known as "begging the question", and it is a logical fallacy.
As a life-long zoo exclusive, this is prolly the best video on zoo I've seen yet, to the point, no hysterics, no BS. Only thing I'd change might be the play speed is a tad bit too fast to read some of the longer text w/o pausing the video.
Okay, I just wanted to say: Thank you. Those are almost all of my arguments except you missed one with the consent thing.
Women who are zoophiles can't exactly "rape" a dog. If the dog is doing all of the stuff it -usually does- during sex... I mean, it's like that story of the teenager who raped his teacher- but if people held that to the same standard, the teacher would be charged with statutory rape. And I'm sorry, but if someone's dog is continually trying to mount them... It's consent.
@angrydead And yet, a unbiased observer looking at the comments would almost think that I was rationally defending my position, quite successfully, while hoards of dissenters tried and failed to come up with an argument to support that very statement you just made.
@IncurableHeathen You can rationally defend any opnion you want-doesnt make you less of an evil scumfuck. I could argue with you but i'm honestly sick of explaining to Zoophilia scumbags why what they do is wrong-something which should be obvious them.
@angrydead Maybe it would help if you weren't so blatantly biased when discussing with them?
Starting out a conversation by calling someone a "scumbag" isn't the best way to get your point across.
Given, on occasion I call people bigots, but at the point where I call someone a bigot, I don't really expect them to change their mind, since by that point they have shown that they are unwilling to do so no matter what evidence is provided.
@angrydead Also, yes, it's true you can rationally defend any opinion, but you would think that after eight months of discussion, at least one person would have come along who could rationally defend their position against mine. So far no one has successfully countered my arguments in favor of zoophilia being moral, and I have successfully countered every one of their arguments.
This, if nothing else, strongly suggests that logic and reason are on my side.
@IncurableHeathen I find this stretches credability to say the least, more likely you simply disregarded logical arguements becouse you decided they didnt appeal to you. I might buy that for something ambigious such as vegetarian debates but something as overtly evil as animal rape? you're talking from your arse.
@angrydead A decent number of the debates I have had on this topic are in the comments of this video. You can look and decide if there are any arguments I did not successfully refute, and, if I have indeed ignored them, I will gladly refute them once you bring them up.
There is no need for your credibility to be stretched when all of the pertinent information is literally a single click away from the page you are viewing at this very moment.
@IncurableHeathen GodFartsGoldenSmoke seems to have pissed on your arguement a few days ago looking at your arguement you hand wave it through deductive fallacies.
Ah on behavoural shrink in an ethical debate decides the issue in a single: that makes raping your dog fine I suppose.
Although you didn't point it out specifically, the main point that fellow was making was that he felt dogs are "brainwashed" and thus, sexual contact with them is immoral.
As I mentioned, that same argument could be used for all contact with dogs, from belly rubs, to walks, to sexual activity. Thus, to use that argument, you have to make the point that humans should not interact with dogs on any level whatsoever.
@angrydead I didn't lose. I was merely asking if you were making that assertion.
Of course, it raises the question that if you are against all human-animal interaction, why focus on sexual activity? Why not argue equally vehemently against belly-rubs?
Because at this point our argument has nothing to do with sexual activity. By your own admission your argument against it has nothing to do with sex, but all interaction of any type. So, in other words, should companion animals exist?
@angrydead I would argue that, yes, companion animals should exist for a variety of reasons.
First, due to their co-evolution with us, they are no longer fit to survive in the wild. At least, nowhere near as fit as their wolf predecessors. To abandon companion animals would result in the deaths of most breeds of dogs.
Second, as mentioned before, I do think their body language is understandable. And I gave some research to support that.
@angrydead That does not mean that all communication should cease.
As a whole there are some very clear and unambiguous actions which are quite easy for a dog owner, or really anyone, to understand.
Barking and growling out of fear or annoyance, moving towards or away from a person to signify enjoyment or displeasure... These are not ambiguous cues.
If you are petting a dog and he moves away from you and growls, it is apparent he would like you to stop; If he moves closer, to continue.
@angrydead Furthermore, the wild is cruel. Even of those dogs that did survive being thrown out of our care, they would live significantly worse lives.
Starvation, predation, and short lives are all quite prevalent in the wild. I don't know about wolves specifically (dog's closest relatives), but many animals face a probability of 90% or higher of death before sexual maturity. Compared to companion animals, who, when well cared for, have a much lower rate of death.
@angrydead So what you are saying is: Interaction with animals is abuse, therefore we shouldn't have them, even if they would live worse lives without said "abuse" (which, as I said in an earlier post, body language is clear enough that one should be able to distinguish something a dog doesn't like from something they do like).
To my way of thinking, you are endorsing suffering so long as it doesn't stem from humans (and you have still failed to demonstrate that it does in the first place).
@IncurableHeathen I've panned through the entire discussion twice and didnt state animal shouldnt interact with people. Your arguement is difficult to follow becouse it doesnt really touch on or relate to anything we've commented. I can see why you think that you've won you're debates since what actually occurs seems to be radically differant. Meaning you;re either stupid or a liar-very common issues with the pro-zoophilia crowd.
@angrydead Perhaps I'm an idiot then because I don't understand how "Yes and you lost" somehow means "No, that is not the assertion I am making".
Nevertheless, feel free to think I've lost, but so far in the argument, you have yet to provide any reasoning for your assertion that sexual activity is abuse, thus making it an unsubstantiated claim.
And the only evidence you hinted at (by referencing Golden's arguments as good) would equally well support a conclusion you have stated you reject.
@IncurableHeathen Well considering it obviously refers to your discussion with GodFartsGoldenSmoke being a better debator to you so yes, yes you are.
-will do
Technically it's problematic to provide proof for ethical discussions, but looking at it so far you have one academic paper I have the bulk of Western thinking on the subject. In regards to intent I feel I've succesfully expressed my utter distain for you.
@angrydead I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence. In other words, an argument.
If that was a serious attempt at coming up with reasoning against my position, you have failed spectacularly. You just committed the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Reality is not determined by majority opinion.
And yes, you have been expressing disdain since we have started discussing, however, your disdain has no impact on neither my arguments, nor your own, and thus is completely irrelevant.
-It wasnt I feel confident I've already won this so your replies are arguement via bullheadedness. I wouldnt start accusing people of fallacies I've counted at least 3 so far.
Actually I disagree, I know you're a massive cunt with stupid beliefs and have succesfully projected that idea you seem resolved to negate this idea or at least sooth your ego by proving me 'wrong'. Otherwise you wouldnt reply would you?
@angrydead You think you've won, yet you haven't provided a worthwhile argument.
Also, feel free to point out any fallacies I've made.
If you'd like to stop arguing, that's fine. As I said, you haven't provided a worthwhile argument (the only argument you provided was an appeal to majority).
1) Said Golden's argument was good, yet refused to support the other conclusions which directly follow with the same logic (plus, I've already explained why that logic is flawed)
2) Made an appeal to majority opinion (while at the same time decrying actual studies)
3) Made an assertion that intercourse with animals is abuse, without providing evidence
None of those constitutes an airtight argument.
Also, I panned back: you pointed out no fallacies.
@angrydead I respect your position. It can be well defended by someone with the proper knowledge and experience. Someone mature enough to have an intelligent discussion without preteen namecalling and finger pointing.
It's just hilarious that you think that person is you. XD
@kyliepaige752 I can defend my stance pretty well. Genrally speaking I've found pro-zoophiliacs to be dubious thinkers at best combined with my personal distaste for people who rape animals ensures that rational debate is a waste of time.
But please continue your "I'm so rational" mental masturbation. I wouldnt want to stop you encouraging animal abuse.
There are many things that any of us can choose to do. However, that does not mean you need to do it because you can. Therapy and self control would do you wonders. This is not a "healthy orientation."
realestatecathy 1 week ago
@realestatecathy There are many things that I could do, but I don't do them because I have no reason to.
What makes you think that I am "choosing" to be a zoophile?
Furthermore, what makes you think I have no self control? Please take a look at the comments of this video. There, you will see the angry masses raging against me and insulting me. And there you will see an example of my self control: where I stay calm and act with reason, rather than anger.
IncurableHeathen 1 week ago
@realestatecathy Furthermore, what research has been done into zoophilia has suggested that trying to "treat" zoophilia is the same as trying to "treat" homosexuality. In both cases, there is very little success, if any, and the therapy is often destructive to the individual's mental state.
IncurableHeathen 1 week ago
I've known many dogs that consented to having sex with me. I wasn't interested, so had to disappoint them. Seems domestic dogs very commonly are sexually attracted to humans.
TheReaverOfDarkness 2 weeks ago
I'd suggest not using a white and black background with white text
Otherwise? Finally nice to see someone else who is intelligent about this subject, but thankfully is ballsy enough to do this. Thank you. <3
kiju243 3 weeks ago
@kiju243 You're welcome.
And I know it makes it a bit harder to read. I should have tried harder to find something that worked better together, but, it's up, and not much I can do about it anymore.
IncurableHeathen 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Herbie1315 3 weeks ago
And consent? The body language argument is such bullshit.
Humans consent using body language ALL THE TIME. TRUE. But consent between two+ humans of comparable intelligence, excluding variability of individual intelligence (referencing the capacity of the human species), is TRUE consent.
Disgusting.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115 Why are you excluding variability of human intelligence? Einstein was far more intelligent than his wife, and yet if they had sex, I doubt you would call it immoral.
Next, what makes you think that animals cannot comprehend the act of sex? Round hole, round peg. Not that difficult to understand.
Also, most humans don't understand sex very well. A biologist has far greater knowledge of sex than a lay person. Should biologists not be allowed to reproduce with lay people?
IncurableHeathen 3 weeks ago
@IncurableHeathen You don't understand. We ignore the variability of human intelligence (1) because the differences are statistically insignificant when compared with the variability of intelligence between species. Einstein's intelligence, for example, is on par with other humans EXCEPT for math and physics. But we are discussing intelligence of social relations. Animals DO NOT have the social intelligence (or otherwise) of our species. This is a very simple concept you choose to disregard.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115 I think this is the crux of the issue. I don't see why you think that variability of intelligence has anything to do with it in the first place. Animals can consent with each other. They have the intelligence to understand that. What part of sex with a human is so much more complex than sex with a member of their same, or similar, species that they would be suddenly unable to comprehend it?
Furthermore, animals, especially pack animals, do have a significant social IQ.
IncurableHeathen 3 weeks ago
@IncurableHeathen wrong. im messaging you responses.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@IncurableHeathen (2) Humans display AND can communicate complex emotions. For example, you could describe your body language if asked. If two humans between cultures, not speaking the same language, show attraction and commit to sex - you can be sure they have the cognitive ability to truly comprehend the act. Animals don't.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115 There's a problem with your logic here. You seem to be only considering voluntary body language. There is a certain amount of voluntary body language, but much is not voluntary, and you may not be able to explain it without the proper scientific background.
For example. Lets say you are talking to someone who you like. Your eyes may dilate in response, and subconsciously, they may register that as a sign of attraction, although neither of you may consciously recognize it
IncurableHeathen 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IncurableHeathen wrong. im messaging you responses.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115 That is merely an example. There are many involuntary signs of emotion and intent that a person may not know they are doing in the first place, and many more actions that are technically voluntary but nonetheless subconscious (like running one's hand through their hair).
IncurableHeathen 3 weeks ago
@IncurableHeathen (3) Even the simplest humans are BILLIONS (+/-) years beyond the equivalent natural development of intelligence for animals. We can even view humans with mental retardation (and the rare relationship with someone who is not retarded). I view this strange, because similarly they are not processing emotions/ideas/anything at the same level. Yet, being with animals is far worse.Even mentally challenged humans have the CAPACITY for HUMAN intelligence. Animals are not close.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115 Also, you are wrong. Humans have an increased brain size, but it is not by billions of years that we are separated from other animals.
The largest section of our brain growth occurred from 1.7 million years to the present. However, that is still misleading, as much of our intelligence and civilization is cultural in origin. And that, my friend, is only about 50 thousand years old.
IncurableHeathen 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IncurableHeathen wrong again. im messaging you responses.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115 So no matter how you look at it, you are off by at least three orders of magnitude, possibly four or five. And that's only looking at average humans, not the "simplest humans" as you suggest.
Furthermore, you say that mentally challenged humans have the capacity for human intelligence. I don't know what you mean. They are not nearly as intelligent as the average human. Their genetic makeup or their formation is such that they could not be equal in intelligence to others.
IncurableHeathen 3 weeks ago
@pacers3115 I am open to changing my mind if you present a logical argument. However I have heard this particular argument many times, and I fail to see how it has any relevance.
Yes, non-human animals are less intelligent than humans. Perhaps even drastically so. So what? I don't see how that matters. Whether or not they can make a blueprint for a house or evaluate an integral seems to me to have nothing to do with whether or not they have the capacity to enjoy sexual activity.
IncurableHeathen 3 weeks ago
@IncurableHeathen Look, you are really reaching, now. If you don't automatically know the difference between Einstein and his wife & a human and a dog, I cannot help you. If you can't tell the difference between your cognitive ability and that of a dog, I cannot help you. Look, if you post this "logical" video, at least trying to be logical, then you have to be open to changing in the face of logical arguments. There is no justification for your side except selfishness.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
Here is something that is not a myth. The difference in mental capacity between humans and any other organism is incomparable. Having sex with animals that are unable to logically comprehend the act in which they are partaking is wrong and selfish. Humans are not simply animals. We have developed intelligence.
pacers3115 3 weeks ago
kill them with fire
KingManga358 1 month ago
@KingManga358 Haven't I seen you before?
I could have sworn I've seen your name before.
Until I remember where I've seen your name before, I am going to assume I saw it on a zoophile-oriented site, asking for hardcore horse porn. Because when I read your name, that is what I am reminded of for some reason.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
@Clawdragoons (-_-) first off zoofag i never ask for hardcore horse porn you dumbass or not even makeing a zoofaggtry account...
if i did where your poof?
KingManga358 4 weeks ago
@KingManga358 I never said you did. I said that I am going to assume that's where I saw your name for no good reason.
So... Was it good porn? Sexysexymaretime? Or sexysexystalliontime?
Clawdragoons 4 weeks ago
@Clawdragoons i dont watch zoofaggtry porn...
KingManga358 4 weeks ago
@KingManga358 Ah, you don't watch zoo porn? Then you must be a fan of still images. Those aren't watched, they're looked at. Big difference.
Clawdragoons 4 weeks ago
@Clawdragoons ?
KingManga358 4 weeks ago
@Clawdragoons like i said i dont watch zoofaggtry porn
KingManga358 1 week ago
did i just find a pro-goat banging video?
sk8er4ever0101 1 month ago
@sk8er4ever0101 I guess?
I don't know anything about goats personally. But if the goat in question is large enough for sexual contact and consents to such contact, then you could say I am pro-goat banging I guess.
IncurableHeathen 1 month ago
You seem like an incredibly intelligent person. You debate well and your arguments are sound. You surely knew this video would spark controversy, but you posted it anyway. I commend you.
kyliepaige752 1 month ago
@kyliepaige752 Thank you very much. I'm glad that you found it sound and well-made.
IncurableHeathen 1 month ago
You bring up really good points. Especially with the hypocrite thing.
I still, however, find it a bit...awkward, I guess...to have sex with non-human animals. However, whatever floats your boat.
RomyLikezCuppycakes 2 months ago
You make a lot of valid points that I wholeheartedly agree with.
youthnotlost 2 months ago
@youthnotlost Thank you. I'm glad you liked the video.
IncurableHeathen 2 months ago
Your pets are not your sex slaves you sick piece of trash.
DracoAzule 3 months ago
@DracoAzule No. No they are not.
And a wife is not a sex slave of a husband. And a husband is not a sex slave of the wife. And one dog is not the sex slave of another dog.
What's your point?
IncurableHeathen 3 months ago
@IncurableHeathen Wifes and husbands can vocalize if they don't want sex. Animals can't.
DracoAzule 3 months ago
@DracoAzule Well actually, they can vocalize if they don't want sex, by barking, growling, whining, or any number of other "unhappy" sounds.
Furthermore, there is plenty of body language that they can use to show they don't want sex. In the case of dogs: not flagging, moving away from the person, turning around, putting their ears back against there heads, and, as mentioned before, there's the vocalization.
So yes, in fact, animals can show when they don't want sex.
IncurableHeathen 3 months ago
@IncurableHeathen That plus animals are easier to get to than human girls. Which is probably why every zoophile I've seen is a fat fuck looser without a girlfriend.
DracoAzule 3 months ago
@DracoAzule I already addressed this in the video, at 2:32 (the second to last myth in the video).
IncurableHeathen 3 months ago
@DracoAzule My boyfriend is in pretty good shape and an honors student. He's a zoo, but he's dating me, so I'm not sure your use of absolutes based on personal experience is a sound way to argue.
Also, there are a lot of 'easy' human girls. :p
kyliepaige752 1 month ago
u saying loads of bullshits in this video.
hugejoint 4 months ago
@hugejoint Such as?
IncurableHeathen 3 months ago
@IncurableHeathen do you have sex with non human animals?
checkmclassics 3 months ago
@checkmclassics I have never had sex before. I am a virgin. However, when I do have sex, I plan to have sex with a non-human animal as opposed to a human.
IncurableHeathen 3 months ago
@IncurableHeathen why?
checkmclassics 3 months ago
@checkmclassics Because I am not attracted to humans, whereas I am attracted to animals. Furthermore, as far as emotional connection goes, I can get a lot closer to an animal like a dog than to a human.
IncurableHeathen 3 months ago
@IncurableHeathen dogs dont want to have sex with humans
checkmclassics 3 months ago
@checkmclassics I disagree. I think that, while not all, many dogs would be very happy to have sex with a human.
Animals are sexual opportunists. They enjoy whatever form of sex they can get. If they can get sex with a human, they not only will enjoy it, but will often actively seek it out.
Sometimes they seek it out even when they don't know they can get it. Hence, leg humping.
IncurableHeathen 3 months ago
@checkmclassics dogs shag peoples' legs all the time Rtard
mikesomething 2 months ago
@checkmclassics My dog certainly does.
voxel95 1 month ago
humans have the ability to think and reason. do animals? no. I believe one of your myths should say that.
The entire purpose of sex is to procreate. That's it. Although it is a pleasurable experience, its main function is not for pleasure...it's for procreating. When animals and humans can successfully procreate, I will take this video seriously.
pitt234567 4 months ago
@pitt234567 You don't think animals are capable of thinking and reasoning?
Well, that's easy enough to disprove. Have a video doing just that:
watch?v=0jF_0tZdbqo
As for sex being just about procreation... Well, sorry to say this, but a good portion of the animal kingdom would disagree with you. Many animals have sex which cannot result in procreation, and many have sex for reasons obviously distinct from procreation.
Do you need me to list off some examples for you? I'll do so gladly.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@IncurableHeathen so you think that animals have the same mental capacity as humans?? this argument is over.
pitt234567 4 months ago
@pitt234567 I never said that they have the same mental capacity as humans. That is a strawman argument.
You said that animals don't have the ability to think and reason. I provided a link to show that they do. Not that they have the same mental capacity as humans.
Such a claim would be ridiculous, as even between humans, mental capacities can vary vastly.
Please try to address my actual argument, rather than attacking a strawman.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@IncurableHeathen So what is your argument? That animals can think? Let me start over. My whole point originally was to show that, as humans, we have a much higher intellect than other animals. We know what is right and what is wrong to a much greater degree. This is what is wrong with society today. If people want to do something (like have sex with a dog), they do it. As a human, you should know that the true purpose of sex is procreation, not pleasure.
pitt234567 4 months ago
@pitt234567 You stated that animals cannot think. Therefore, I felt obligated to prove you wrong. If you didn't want me to prove that animals think, you shouldn't have stated that they do not.
Your argument seems to be a bit fragmented. Are you arguing because we are smarter than animals, it is wrong to have sex with them? Or because animals are not intelligent, it's wrong to have sex with them (there is a distinct difference)?
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 (continued) Or are you arguing some other point? You haven't really made it clear.
Furthermore, you seem to be begging the question. The debate is about whether or not having sex with an animal is wrong, and it seems that you are assuming it is wrong as part of your evidence for why it is wrong.
Furthermore, you've said this twice now: you think sex is about procreation not pleasure. Let me address that misconception in full.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 First of all, the animal kingdom disagrees with you by it's very actions. Many animals have sex in nonproductive ways.
This is just off the top of my head, and by no means a complete list:
Bats have been observed giving each other oral sex, penguins, rams, and dogs have been shown to be homosexual, dolphins have been shown to engage in oral sex, nasal sex, and homosexual sex. Dogs, Kangaroos, and Ferrets have been observed to masturbate.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 (continued) Dogs, Chimps, Seals, and Rabbits, have all been observed to participate in cross-species sex, even cross-class sex. Ducks have been observed to engage in sex with corpses.
Why do these various animals have unproductive sex? For pleasure. But let me go even a bit further.
What other purposes are there for sex? Because, while I've shown that animals have sex for reasons other than procreation, that hasn't yet shown that the purpose of sex is other than procreation.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 (continued) Sexual activity is for social bonding.
Bonobos show this the best. Bonobos work out their problems, bond with newcomers, and keep up tribe bonds through sexual activity. But many species do have sex as a form of bonding. If sex was not for the purpose of bonding as well as procreation, adultery would not be frowned upon in our society.
(I'd also like to note that there are other uses for sex. For example, penguins use a form of prostitution to get help building nests)
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 (continued) Finally, let's get down to the real crux of the issue. Even though I think I've shown that your statements are factually inaccurate, it doesn't actually matter.
Because using something for something besides it's intended purpose is part of intellect.
I have here a wooden spoon. The purpose of wood is to provide structure and height to a tree.
Does that make my wooden spoon "wrong"? I'm using the material for something besides it's intended purpose.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 Perhaps you think that isn't a good example. After all, the spoon, while originally wood was then crafted into something with a new purpose. Then let's say someone was having a seizure. I used the spoon to keep them from biting their tongue, by putting it between their jaws.
Now I am not using the spoon for either the intended purpose when created by the tree or the intended purpose when made into a spoon.
Is it wrong to use it in that way? Should I not have used it that way?
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 So! To sum everything up: 1) Animals have sex for reasons other than procreation. 2) Sex has more purposes than procreation. 3) Even if both 1 and 2 were not true, that would still not make sex for pleasure wrong.
I'd also like to ask, out of curiosity, are you also against birth control?
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@IncurableHeathen then please, in a scientific manner, explain the purposes of sex. If you can give me a purpose that is as important or is as closely linked as procreation, you win.
pitt234567 4 months ago
@pitt234567 I said this earlier, didn't I? Pleasure and social bonding.
Also, you seem to be committing the moving goalpost fallacy. At first you seemed to be saying that procreation is the only purpose, and how that I've shown earlier in the conversation the other purposes, you are demanding a purpose that is as important as procreation.
All this, and you still haven't shown why, even if procreation was the only inherent purpose of sex, it would make sex for other reasons wrong.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@pitt234567 (continued) Also, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but "importance" is a subjective criteria. Important to what?
I mean, for the continuation of the species, procreation is obviously the most important aspect.
But most creatures don't have the continuation of the species in mind when having sex. To an individual, the most important aspect of sexual activity is pleasure. Why do you think contraception is such a big and prevalent business?
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
you sick piece of garbage go to hell,you are the sickest individual ive ever seen
Necrophil89 4 months ago
@Necrophil89 Well isn't that ever so friendly.
Do you have an argument to back that up, or has the video preemptively refuted the argument you would have used?
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
killing animals for food*
robzombiefann 4 months ago
I am not going to discriminate you for your "Fetish" but I have to say comparing killing animals to food and having sex with animals is stupid. It isn't hypocrisy to eat meat and be against beastiality because they're two completely different things. Also, Killing animals of food isn't necessary but practical because most people in the world eat some form of meat and besides we aren't the ones killing them.
robzombiefann 4 months ago
@robzombiefann Killing animals for food, and yet arguing that zoophilia is wrong because animals can't consent is hypocritical though. It's the argument that makes it hypocritical, not the stance itself.
To put it another way, killing animals for food ignores their consent. To argue that consent is necessary would mean that killing animals for food is wrong, since consent isn't obtained. Thus, if one eats meat while arguing in favor of consent, they hold contrary opinions, hence, hypocrites.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@robzombiefann Two other things. One, saying that most of the world eats meat is an appeal to common practice, and is a logical fallacy. I personally think that most of the world is in error on this particular issue.
Second, again, I don't consider zoophilia a fetish, I consider it an orientation.
Nonetheless, I thank you for your intent not to discriminate. It is appreciated.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
Really interesting video. :)
Beyoncefan230 4 months ago
Humans have been having sex with animals since the beggining of thier existence.
catkidtj 4 months ago
Its commonly said that three types of lies i.e lies, heavy lies and statics
DoctorHver 4 months ago
@DoctorHver From my limited experience on this planet, I would say that statistics are not "lies", just a type of information that the majority of people don't know how to properly interpret.
Plus, I don't think I relied too heavily on statistics in this video anyway.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People who try to justify zoo sex is the same as trying to justify pedophilia. Members of the "man boy love" sex club basically believe and say the same thing. I'm amazed with just about every single child porn arrest, bestiality images and videos are also part of the perverted collection, sometimes children even being made to have sex with animals.
WinterHaven 4 months ago
Comment removed
WinterHaven 4 months ago
WHO THE FUCK HAS SEX WITH AN ANIMAL ? !!!!!! DISGUSTING !
GET LAID BY A GIRL OR GUY BUT NOT WITH AN ANIMAL !
X0INFINITYX0 4 months ago
@X0INFINITYX0 Statistically speaking, some 4% of the American population has had sex with an animal.
The number used to be higher. According to the Kinsey Reports, some 8% of the American population had sex with an animal at some point.
Furthermore, he estimated that in rural parts of America, that number could be as high as 50%.
So, statistically speaking, in the right circumstances, a lot of people would have or have had sex with animals.
Furthermore, personal disgust is not an argument.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@IncurableHeathen then go eat a dog's stinky pussy or a dog's dick !!!!!
I PREFER WOMAN'S PUSSY ANYDAY ANYTIME ;)
X0INFINITYX0 4 months ago
@X0INFINITYX0 That's fine. To each their own. That's my motto.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
Any human to have sex with an animal deserves to be thrown into fire. That is very sub-human of you people
TimeSmall 4 months ago
@TimeSmall Well, it's nice to know that you think that people who aren't like you should die painful deaths.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@IncurableHeathen Exactly. You animal fuckers should be cooked along with cows
TimeSmall 4 months ago
@TimeSmall Well, you don't seem interested in a discussion. I don't have any interest in trolls. Goodbye.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
Hmm. That was rather interesting. Haha yeah, even some Animals want to have sex with us! lol great example is a dog. But in any case, if i were to say stay with your own species i'd be Hippocratic cause.. Ohh it would be so cool to diddle an Alien race! You have my support, just wait and have patiance.
YellowMTP 5 months ago
@YellowMTP Thank you very much. A nice person once in a while (like you) is refreshing.
IncurableHeathen 4 months ago
@IncurableHeathen yeah no problem, people can be such assholes GOD FORBID IF YOUR DIFFERENT RIGHT? lmao no lets face it, I believe in god, I do. I don't however believe he has ANYTHING against Zoophiles, gays, bisexuals, pedophiles, murderers, politiciatns, etc. only our society does ergo bein this is such a "Perfect" society, most believe that god "Demands" perfection. lol what a load of shit, he created us in his image right? sais it right in the bible. in other words what does that mean? lol!
YellowMTP 3 months ago
@IncurableHeathen lol sorry to be off topic like that, i just think its hilarious. anyway keep holding in there, your not alone. dont listen to these assholes their still very primitive living by societies rules lmao and yes i eat desert before my main course. what happened to the rebels i miss them. woo! even gays hate bisexuals wtf? lmao fuck you gay guys and women and straight guys and women. i'm bisexual and i LIKE both! haha XD i'm buzzed
YellowMTP 3 months ago
@YellowMTP Wow. So people who don't agree with fucking animals are primitive and slaves to society for not accepting it as a lifestyle, but you have all the freedom in the world to call them primitive and assholes, or say "fuck gay people because I'm bi".
Hypocrite.
PaleVoyager 2 months ago
@PaleVoyager Well apparently he was drunk while writing that, so perhaps you should give him some slack.
Although I would agree with a select few things he's said.
IncurableHeathen 2 months ago
i like animals i dont wanna fuck them
i like potatoes i dont wanna fuck them
extremeeXrement1 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 You just reminded me of a Cyanide and Happiness sketch called "I Love Noodles".
Anyway, that's fine, so long as you aren't trying to turn your personal preference into an argument.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago in playlist Liked
@Clawdragoons im just saying that when people incorporate sexuality into places it doesnt belong you get these types of problems. Animal lovers become zoophiles, people who are fond of children become pedophiles, and enviornmentalists become dentrophiles. what people should do is limit the apreciation of certain things to just emotional or platonic love. not sexuality
extremeeXrement1 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 And everyone with same gender friends is automatically a homosexual, since homosexuality has been accepted?
Yeah, no, that hasn't happened.
Also, your argument seems a bit circular. You are saying that people shouldn't incorporate sexuality into places it doesn't belong, because it doesn't belong there.
Zoophilia seems to be an orientation. Regardless of social acceptance, there will be zoophiles, and there will be (the majority of) people who are not.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
@Clawdragoons well regardless people shouldnt fuck animals its bad if someone wantsas orientation thats unfortunate but still dont do it
extremeeXrement1 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 Why not? If they enjoy it, and the animal enjoys it (which the video makes a very good case for), what exactly is the problem?
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
@Clawdragoons ex in one case a horse was psychologically damaged. it was famas and the video of the horse fuckin a dude was a well known shock video called mr. hands years latter the horse was seen and was expirenceing psychological issues. it was all in the documentary "Zoo". plus i can ask a person "have you been tested, or do you have aids" Animals cant and i can be sure whether my partner has aids. an animal cant and cannot avoid contracting aids
extremeeXrement1 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 Are you suggesting that nonhuman animals are susceptible to HIV? Do you know what HIV stands for? It's the HUMAN Immunodeficiency Virus. An animal cannot get HIV from a human. HIV does not survive in their bodies.
Also, yes, there are cases where animals are physically or psychologically harmed by sex. That is irrelevant. There are also cases where humans are physically or psychologically harmed by sex.
Cruel or non-consensual sex acts should still be illegal.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 Just as they are between humans. Intercourse which is neither cruel, nor non-consensual should not be illegal.
I've heard of Mr. Hands. However, it is not a good example for a few reasons. First, the horse was not his own. If I remember correctly, the horse was part of a "sex farm" of sorts. Something I am vigorously against. Second, it is a single example, and not representative.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 To put it another way, using the Mr. Hands incident as an argument against zoophilia is similar to using Jeffrey Dahmer as an argument against sex with humans.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
@Clawdragoons well not really in mr. hands the horse fucked him animals are like people and they can suffer psychological consiquences for things that they did and enjoyed. the horse really did enjoy it if not it wouldnt have mounted him
extremeeXrement1 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 But the horse was part of a sex ranch. He could very well have been mistreated in any number of ways that had nothing to do with sex. That's why I want I'd like a source. I see no reason to suggest that the reason the horse had psychological damage (if the horse indeed had psychological damage in the first place) is due to the Mr Hands incident.
Furthermore, I have seen some news articles suggest that an animal is psychologically damaged BECAUSE it would have sex with humans.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
@extremeeXrement1 Once again, a single unsupported instance is such weak evidence that it doesn't even have a part in this debate.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
Animals have sex with other animals /within their own species/, for purpose of reproduction. When it is not for purpose of reproduction, it is in animals used to assert dominance. Asserting dominance over a creature with lesser mental faculties than your own = rape.
Technyndriakh 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh Actually, you are incorrect. Animals have sex outside of their species fairly often. As I have listed earlier in the comments sections here, interspecies sex has been observed to occur in a wide variety of animals, ranging from seals and penguins, to rabbits and chickens, to different species of bears.
Furthermore, animals do seem to have sex for pleasure. This is well documented in animals like dolphins and bonobos, but has also been observed in a variety of other species.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh The two ways that I know of that sex has been shown to be not simply for the purpose of procreation are, one, observation of non-productive sexual acts in the animal kingdom, and two, administration of dopamine (the chemical responsible for sexual pleasure) blocking drugs to lab animals and recording changes in their sexual activity.
In the former, sexual activity in dopamine-blocked animals drops significantly, suggesting that pleasure is at least a very important sex motivator.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh For the former, the list of nonproductive sexual acts in the animal kingdom is quite vast. Most obviously is homosexuality, which occurs in a large number of mammals at a decent rate. However, masturbation has been observed as well (off the top of my head, dogs, various apes, and ferrets have been observed to masturbate).
Autofellatio has been observed in kangaroos and perhaps other species.
Oral sex has been observed in dolphins, apes, bats, and perhaps others.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh And, of course, as listed earlier, interspecies sex has been observed in a variety of animals, and is a form of nonproductive sex.
And, of course, humans ARE animals.
Finally, your argument is flawed, in that you argue that animals use sex to assert dominance, asserting dominance via sex is rape, with an implied conclusion that sex with animals is rape.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh However, that conclusion could only be supported by the premise that the reason humans have sex with animals is to assert dominance. The premise you supplied (which I argued with anyway) is that nonhuman animals have sex to assert dominance, not that human animals do.
Unless you are arguing that humans do not have sex for pleasure, your argument is invalid, since your conclusion does not follow from the premises.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh not always, and dominance is not done with a full raging hardon and other things.
doggiejigs 5 months ago in playlist Animals
@Technyndriakh Judge yourself. How many times must I have to say this to whoever so whoever will win an eternal prize in a finite life time. One human that dies cannot make themselves better than another human animal that dies by trying to put another human animal that dies down. Attempting to do that is the same thing a bully does. Do you agree?
kobidobidog 4 months ago
You could use any of the arguments in this video to condone rape or pedophilia of any other variety, it is disgusting for the same reasons. I suppose a human in a vegetative state, retarded or a child unable to comprehend sex has the brain chemicals required to "experience pleasure", and is incapable of dissenting, makes it perfectly acceptable to fuck them.
Technyndriakh 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh I have never made the argument that lack of dissent is all that is required for sexual activity. Positive consent to the action is required. My argument isn't "animals can't dissent, therefore you can have sex with them". My argument is "animals can consent, therefore, if they consent, you may have sex with them". I have also explained how animals can consent, in the video and elsewhere, by discussing body language.
The rest of the video was dispelling myths not directly related.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
@Technyndriakh In your examples, consent is not given, and thus they are not comparable to zoophilia.
The debate we are in is about whether or not animals can consent. To make the comparison, you assume they cannot, and then use the comparison as reasoning for why they cannot.
That is known as "begging the question", and it is a logical fallacy.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
As a life-long zoo exclusive, this is prolly the best video on zoo I've seen yet, to the point, no hysterics, no BS. Only thing I'd change might be the play speed is a tad bit too fast to read some of the longer text w/o pausing the video.
doggiejigs 5 months ago 2
@doggiejigs I'm glad you liked it.
Play speed is hard to get right. Too long, it gets boring. Too fast, you've got to pause. In the end I just tried to fit it to the music.
IncurableHeathen 5 months ago
Okay, I just wanted to say: Thank you. Those are almost all of my arguments except you missed one with the consent thing.
Women who are zoophiles can't exactly "rape" a dog. If the dog is doing all of the stuff it -usually does- during sex... I mean, it's like that story of the teenager who raped his teacher- but if people held that to the same standard, the teacher would be charged with statutory rape. And I'm sorry, but if someone's dog is continually trying to mount them... It's consent.
TalaDarthiris 6 months ago
@TalaDarthiris Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. To note, that argument also applies to gay men as well as to women.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
What an evil scumfuck you are.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead And yet, a unbiased observer looking at the comments would almost think that I was rationally defending my position, quite successfully, while hoards of dissenters tried and failed to come up with an argument to support that very statement you just made.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen You can rationally defend any opnion you want-doesnt make you less of an evil scumfuck. I could argue with you but i'm honestly sick of explaining to Zoophilia scumbags why what they do is wrong-something which should be obvious them.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead Maybe it would help if you weren't so blatantly biased when discussing with them?
Starting out a conversation by calling someone a "scumbag" isn't the best way to get your point across.
Given, on occasion I call people bigots, but at the point where I call someone a bigot, I don't really expect them to change their mind, since by that point they have shown that they are unwilling to do so no matter what evidence is provided.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@angrydead Also, yes, it's true you can rationally defend any opinion, but you would think that after eight months of discussion, at least one person would have come along who could rationally defend their position against mine. So far no one has successfully countered my arguments in favor of zoophilia being moral, and I have successfully countered every one of their arguments.
This, if nothing else, strongly suggests that logic and reason are on my side.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen I find this stretches credability to say the least, more likely you simply disregarded logical arguements becouse you decided they didnt appeal to you. I might buy that for something ambigious such as vegetarian debates but something as overtly evil as animal rape? you're talking from your arse.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead A decent number of the debates I have had on this topic are in the comments of this video. You can look and decide if there are any arguments I did not successfully refute, and, if I have indeed ignored them, I will gladly refute them once you bring them up.
There is no need for your credibility to be stretched when all of the pertinent information is literally a single click away from the page you are viewing at this very moment.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen GodFartsGoldenSmoke seems to have pissed on your arguement a few days ago looking at your arguement you hand wave it through deductive fallacies.
Ah on behavoural shrink in an ethical debate decides the issue in a single: that makes raping your dog fine I suppose.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead The two of us discussed for a while.
Although you didn't point it out specifically, the main point that fellow was making was that he felt dogs are "brainwashed" and thus, sexual contact with them is immoral.
As I mentioned, that same argument could be used for all contact with dogs, from belly rubs, to walks, to sexual activity. Thus, to use that argument, you have to make the point that humans should not interact with dogs on any level whatsoever.
Are you making that assertion?
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen yes and you lost
brainwashed is too strong a word-exploited cover it better.
fallacious reasoning A does not equal B automatically
I've already made my assurtion-you absolute shit.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead I didn't lose. I was merely asking if you were making that assertion.
Of course, it raises the question that if you are against all human-animal interaction, why focus on sexual activity? Why not argue equally vehemently against belly-rubs?
Because at this point our argument has nothing to do with sexual activity. By your own admission your argument against it has nothing to do with sex, but all interaction of any type. So, in other words, should companion animals exist?
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@angrydead I would argue that, yes, companion animals should exist for a variety of reasons.
First, due to their co-evolution with us, they are no longer fit to survive in the wild. At least, nowhere near as fit as their wolf predecessors. To abandon companion animals would result in the deaths of most breeds of dogs.
Second, as mentioned before, I do think their body language is understandable. And I gave some research to support that.
While there are ambiguities in communication
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@angrydead That does not mean that all communication should cease.
As a whole there are some very clear and unambiguous actions which are quite easy for a dog owner, or really anyone, to understand.
Barking and growling out of fear or annoyance, moving towards or away from a person to signify enjoyment or displeasure... These are not ambiguous cues.
If you are petting a dog and he moves away from you and growls, it is apparent he would like you to stop; If he moves closer, to continue.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@angrydead Furthermore, the wild is cruel. Even of those dogs that did survive being thrown out of our care, they would live significantly worse lives.
Starvation, predation, and short lives are all quite prevalent in the wild. I don't know about wolves specifically (dog's closest relatives), but many animals face a probability of 90% or higher of death before sexual maturity. Compared to companion animals, who, when well cared for, have a much lower rate of death.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen Irrelivant simply becouse living standards are improved by humans does not give us the right to abuse for gratification.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead So what you are saying is: Interaction with animals is abuse, therefore we shouldn't have them, even if they would live worse lives without said "abuse" (which, as I said in an earlier post, body language is clear enough that one should be able to distinguish something a dog doesn't like from something they do like).
To my way of thinking, you are endorsing suffering so long as it doesn't stem from humans (and you have still failed to demonstrate that it does in the first place).
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen Strawman human interaction with animals isnt abuse-raping animals is.
Another strawman I/we can't prevent suffering in general but that doesnt really mean we should actively cultivate it.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead I asked you in the beginning of this conversation if you felt that human interaction with animals should stop.
Here, I'll quote:
Clawdragons:
"Thus, to use that argument, you have to make the point that humans should not interact with dogs on any level whatsoever.
Are you making that assertion?"
Angrydead (directly after): "Yes"
Have you changed your mind, and now would like to argue that humans and animals can interact, but just not sexually?
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen I've panned through the entire discussion twice and didnt state animal shouldnt interact with people. Your arguement is difficult to follow becouse it doesnt really touch on or relate to anything we've commented. I can see why you think that you've won you're debates since what actually occurs seems to be radically differant. Meaning you;re either stupid or a liar-very common issues with the pro-zoophilia crowd.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead I just quoted you where you said that. You can just ctrl+f my quote to see exactly where it is.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. Nevertheless, if that's NOT the argument you're making, that changes the nature of the discussion.
So, what is your reasoning that sexual activity is abuse? Let's take it from there.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen You quoted the word yes the only time I used the word was in the sentance "yes and you lost"
If you misunderstood that you're an idiot
Let's not I think you've already lost quite badly.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead Perhaps I'm an idiot then because I don't understand how "Yes and you lost" somehow means "No, that is not the assertion I am making".
Nevertheless, feel free to think I've lost, but so far in the argument, you have yet to provide any reasoning for your assertion that sexual activity is abuse, thus making it an unsubstantiated claim.
And the only evidence you hinted at (by referencing Golden's arguments as good) would equally well support a conclusion you have stated you reject.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen Well considering it obviously refers to your discussion with GodFartsGoldenSmoke being a better debator to you so yes, yes you are.
-will do
Technically it's problematic to provide proof for ethical discussions, but looking at it so far you have one academic paper I have the bulk of Western thinking on the subject. In regards to intent I feel I've succesfully expressed my utter distain for you.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence. In other words, an argument.
If that was a serious attempt at coming up with reasoning against my position, you have failed spectacularly. You just committed the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Reality is not determined by majority opinion.
And yes, you have been expressing disdain since we have started discussing, however, your disdain has no impact on neither my arguments, nor your own, and thus is completely irrelevant.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen -don't care
-It wasnt I feel confident I've already won this so your replies are arguement via bullheadedness. I wouldnt start accusing people of fallacies I've counted at least 3 so far.
Actually I disagree, I know you're a massive cunt with stupid beliefs and have succesfully projected that idea you seem resolved to negate this idea or at least sooth your ego by proving me 'wrong'. Otherwise you wouldnt reply would you?
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead You think you've won, yet you haven't provided a worthwhile argument.
Also, feel free to point out any fallacies I've made.
If you'd like to stop arguing, that's fine. As I said, you haven't provided a worthwhile argument (the only argument you provided was an appeal to majority).
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen Have won, my arguement was watertight you support animal abuse and are thus a shit head
I have done so if you pan back.
Feelings mutual scumfuck.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead Um, no actually, so far you've:
1) Said Golden's argument was good, yet refused to support the other conclusions which directly follow with the same logic (plus, I've already explained why that logic is flawed)
2) Made an appeal to majority opinion (while at the same time decrying actual studies)
3) Made an assertion that intercourse with animals is abuse, without providing evidence
None of those constitutes an airtight argument.
Also, I panned back: you pointed out no fallacies.
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@IncurableHeathen
1)No I said Golden was an academic soarce
2)Nope I commented this was one soarce vs everything else something which is a prettty valid
3) It's pretty self explanitory you're forcing yourself upon creatures which by definition cannot provide consent
4) also called you an evil fuck.
For a guy who doesnt care and who thinks he's got the upper hand you seem very desperate to assurt how watertight your position is.
angrydead 6 months ago
@angrydead
1) Not that I remember. I'll have to look back when I have more time.
2) No, without providing sources, it's completely invalid.
3) Nothing in the definition of "animal" or "dog" includes "inability to provide consent".
IncurableHeathen 6 months ago
@angrydead Wow. You're... a real piece of work.
kyliepaige752 1 month ago
@kyliepaige752 What can I say? I really hate animal abuse: what a peace of work I am eh?
angrydead 1 month ago
@angrydead I respect your position. It can be well defended by someone with the proper knowledge and experience. Someone mature enough to have an intelligent discussion without preteen namecalling and finger pointing.
It's just hilarious that you think that person is you. XD
kyliepaige752 1 month ago
@kyliepaige752 I can defend my stance pretty well. Genrally speaking I've found pro-zoophiliacs to be dubious thinkers at best combined with my personal distaste for people who rape animals ensures that rational debate is a waste of time.
But please continue your "I'm so rational" mental masturbation. I wouldnt want to stop you encouraging animal abuse.
angrydead 1 month ago
@angrydead You are a liar. I looked back over our previous conversation and you did nothing but continually assert your conclusion as fact.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago
@Clawdragoons Actually i insulted a worthless sack of pubes et nausium-that doesnt mean I defended my previous stances in the past does it?
Moron.
angrydead 1 month ago
@angrydead Based on the previous conversation that you had, I have no interest in arguing with you right now.
You apparently have no interest in whether or not the positions that you hold are true or not.
Clawdragoons 1 month ago