Animal sex and gay sex are the same in sweeden?

[Dead_Meat]

I meant I would put it in it's bowl, but that of course means I've spiked its' drink and therefore it's non-consensual and therefore I'll burn in hell for all eternity, am i rite?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

That's a stupid comment.
If you accepted that you could say it is imposible to have consential sex as everytime men are raping their partner's vaginas (or whatever)

Women own their vaginas.

(hmm... owning a hole? would it count if it were an atom-width penis that didn't touch the sides)

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Last night, DM took nodrog's cat











IN THE ASS AM I RITE?

BOOM BOOM!

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by queball

Oh no! Bad men are raping their hands. ]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

That's a stupid comment.
If you accepted that you could say it is imposible to have consential sex as everytime men are raping their partner's vaginas (or whatever)

Originally Posted by queball

Women own their vaginas.

?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

I think the issue is that the animals are incapable of making a competent decision about whether to have sex with the person, not the diffenition of the financial ownership.

Kleenex tissue can't consent either.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Dead_Meat

I meant I would put it in it's bowl, but that of course means I've spiked its' drink and therefore it's non-consensual and therefore I'll burn in hell for all eternity, am i rite?

How is that rape?
If you spiked a human's drink without the intended perpose of raping her (him?) afterwards it wouldnt be rape either. And what's with all the bible references? I'm not religous

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Kleenex tissue can't consent either.

Now you're being silly.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

How is that rape?

The original joke was that you were doing it with the intent of raping them afterwards, ffs.

[Dead_Meat]

Yes, but the kitten doesn't know it's drinking alchohol, then afterwards it's cutesy wutesy furry-wurry little bum bum is being savagely violated by my man-sausage.

CONVICT ME OH JURY, FOR I AM A SICKO !!!!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Now you're being silly.

No, you're being silly by applying words like "consent" to non-human animals.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

And what's with all the bible references? I'm not religous

Before self-ownership was legislated, in the times of legal sex slaves, having sex with a slave without her "consent" was legal. (I think. In some circumstances. I'm not an expert. Just bear with me.)

You don't think ownership is important, and it's all about consent, but that's not how the law has worked. It's all about ownership, baby. You can have sex with anything you like, but you're subject to property rights, and if you **** a living human orifice without the permission of the orifice's owner, that's rape.

[queball]

Oh and ****ing someone else's slave might not be rape, but the charge against bestiophiles is "animal abuse" or something stupid like that, not rape.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

No, you're being silly by applying words like "consent" to non-human animals.

You're the one who brought up 'consent' in reference to animals, I was commenting on whether the human was consenting when it's body part was used for sex.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

bestiophiles

I think they prefer the term "animal lover".

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

For you it would be completely acceptable when your neightbour buys a Bullterrier for the purpose of shagging it up the arse each night?

Bestiality may be fairly sick, but I do not see why a government should dedicate time, money, and judicial effort in order to stop it from happening.

If it really is so much of a problem, let society work it out.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

You're the one who brought up 'consent' in reference to animals, I was commenting on whether the human was consenting when it's body part was used for sex.

You mentioned about animals making competent decisions about things, which is frankly nonsensical.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by queball

Before self-ownership was legislated, in the times of legal sex slaves, having sex with a slave without her "consent" was legal. (I think. In some circumstances. I'm not an expert. Just bear with me.)

You don't think ownership is important, and it's all about consent, but that's not how the law has worked. It's all about ownership, baby. You can have sex with anything you like, but you're subject to property rights, and if you **** a living human orifice without the permission of the orifice's owner, that's rape.

I'm not arguing the definition of ownership. As I said, the reason why people term bestiality as abuse is because the animal is incapable of making a sexual decision, and you aren't doing anything to dispute that.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by queball

Deuteronomy 27:2

That doesn't mention anything about animals or sex.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

I'm not arguing the definition of ownership. As I said, the reason why people term bestiality as abuse is because the animal is incapable of making a sexual decision, and you aren't doing anything to dispute that.

As I've said, kleenex tissues aren't capable of making competent decisions. Vibrators aren't capable of making competent decisions. The issue is whether that matters at all. You're working on the implication that "raping" a dog is a bad thing because dogs are suffering in some sense. I don't accept this.

[Cynical Oracle]

Do you agree that noone "owns" another life Dante?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You mentioned about animals making competent decisions about things, which is frankly nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

I think the issue is that the animals are incapable of making a competent decision about whether to have sex with the person, not the diffenition of the financial ownership.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Do you agree that noone "owns" another life Dante?

Would you say you own the plants in your house?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As I've said, kleenex tissues aren't capable of making competent decisions. Vibrators aren't capable of making competent decisions. The issue is whether that matters at all. You're working on the implication that "raping" a dog is a bad thing because dogs are suffering in some sense. I don't accept this.

So you're saying a non-sentient animal is no different to an inanimate object?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Do you agree that noone "owns" another life Dante?

Definitely not. The person who has pets owns their dog. I own the plants in my home (as Leshy notes). The farmer owns his lifestock. Etc, etc. There's nothing particularly special about "life" per se - it's not a magic property.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

So you're saying a non-sentient animal is no different to an inanimate object?

There are obviously differences (before Nodrog starts) but not important ones (in the context of this discussion). My attitude towards their relevent rights, etc is the same.

[Cynical Oracle]

Why do you "own" it then?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Leshy

That doesn't mention anything about animals or sex.

edited

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Why do you "own" it then?

Why do you own anything? If we're rejecting the term ownership completley then cool, we can set up some other legal framework to work with. I don't see the difference between owning a packet of meat, a cow, and a brick, for instance.

[Cynical Oracle]

Does this apply to humans aswell?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There are obviously differences (before Nodrog starts) but not important ones (in the context of this discussion). My attitude towards their relevent rights, etc is the same.

I think a non-sentient organism would feel pain, but would be much less able to interpret it in the way sentient ones do. A kleenex does not feel pain, ever.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

I think a non-sentient organism would feel pain, but would be much less able to interpret it in the way sentient ones do. A kleenex does not feel pain, ever.

In an ultra fictional sidenote, how do you know that?

[RexDrax]

My goodness, I actually read all the posts. Intresting to say the least and quite sick. Funny comments too.....you bunch of sickos

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

Does this apply to humans aswell?

No, it doesn't apply to living and non-living conscious entities.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by queball

edited

Neither does Deuteronomy 27:21, for that matter.

P.S. Yes, I have a Bible now

[Cynical Oracle]

So, aslong as it/they can't make a stance against it it's ok regardless of what you would/could "imagine" is in it/their best interest?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

So, aslong as it/they can't make a stance against it it's ok regardless of what you would/could "imagine" is in it/their best interest?

Considering it's socially acceptable to cut off a bunch of flowers, put them in vase and watch them die, I'd say your definition is fairly accurate.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Neither does Deuteronomy 27:21, for that matter.

P.S. Yes, I have a Bible now

21: "`Cursed be he who lies with any kind of beast.' And all the people shall say, `Amen.'
?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Considering it's socially acceptable to cut off a bunch of flowers, put them in vase and watch them die, I'd say your definition is fairly accurate.

You make no difference between between a flower and a dog?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by Cynical Oracle

In an ultra fictional sidenote, how do you know that?

Which part?
That non-sentiant animals feel pain, or than inanimate obects dont?

[Cynical Oracle]

Both...

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

First result of Google

How you feel pain (first result)
An inanimate object has neither the nerves to respond to stimuli nor the brain to recieve or process the signals.

[JonnyBGood]

I think we all need to consider my proposition that plants are people too before we go into the fine details of animal rights.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by queball

21: "`Cursed be he who lies with any kind of beast.' And all the people shall say, `Amen.'
?

My bad. Skipped to 28:21 accidentally.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think we all need to consider my proposition that plants are people too before we go into the fine details of animal rights.

Plants are alive (within the standard definition of the word) and respond to outside stimuli such as the presence of sunlight but, as inanimate objects, they feel no pain as they are biogically lacking.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Plants are alive (within the standard definition of the word) and respond to outside stimuli such as the presence of sunlight but, as inanimate objects, they feel no pain as they are biogically lacking.

What do you mean by "inanimate"?

[Marilyn Manson]

As long as you're only raping cats, I don't mind. If you started raping plants, then I would have to tear you a new hole.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Dictionary.com. I think you also need to throw in the phrase 'something that will not move or deviate from a set patturn unless acted upon by an outside force'.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

Dictionary.com. I think you also need to throw in the phrase 'something that will not move or deviate from a set patturn unless acted upon by an outside force'.

I don't think anyone's ever proved that animals deviate from set patterns without external stimuli. Certainly the proof that animals have free will would rather spectacularly demolish nearly everyone's arguments.

[Nodrog]

What do you mean by 'outside force'?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally Posted by Cmdr_Cyrax

First result of Google

How you feel pain (first result)
An inanimate object has neither the nerves to respond to stimuli nor the brain to recieve or process the signals.

Non sentiant animals can feels pain, and so can plants.

The fictional part was, what if everything around us has a 'force', much in the same way, we cannot describe abstract thought, more than bioneural connections in the brain (for humans that is).

Can you still inflict whatever you want on them, just because they can't deny someone/something the right to own them or they can't give a consent?