Thread replies: 26
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1470767966751.png (1MB, 880x759px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 880x759px
Are there any arguments that may be used by the majority of the population against zoophilia without them sounding like complete hypocrites? This isn't a bait thread and I would never think about doing it myself, just a moral question.
>It's cruel against the animal
No, not crueler than raising them for meat, meat that a majority of the population got no problems with eating meat. There are hunters and those eating meat produced more humanly, sure, but how many stay to that exclusively? There's also something called "artificial insemination" which practically is the same as sex or rape.
>We weren't made/evolved for that
The first argument is religious, which is fine as long as you are ready with other groups making other religious claims, which most people aren't. The second can only be used by primitivists who make up a very very small percentage of society.
>>
>>1705670
I would argue that at least to modern notions of "proper" sexual activity, you require informed consent of both parties, which is for a purpose beyond merely protecting both parties, understanding and having some idea of what sex is for and about is an essential part of healthy sex.
Animals can't communicate meaningfully enough with humans to provide proper consent, when they even have the intelligence to grasp concepts like that.
Ergo, no zoophilia.
>>
>can put dick in animal
>must make it legal
Its disgusting to me and we werent evolved for that
>>
File: 8f8f40d8afe5b06e1628e305d454ee2879d24504abe3a67b790cc599917f3210_1.jpg (32KB, 720x540px) Image search:
[Google]
32KB, 720x540px
>>1705670
Eating animals is delicious but fucking them is disgusting. It's pretty simple m8
>but that's just your opinion
yeah, so is everything else.
>>
>>1705690
We also have rules and laws against Murder as well as slavery, neither of those apply to animals so why should sex ones do?
>>
>>1705713
Like I said, notions of consent are not just there to protect people from unwanted sexual advances. Consent is considered to be an essential part of the sexual experience, a basis of bonding between the pair. You can't have that with an animal.
Try reading the post next time.
>>
It is self-harm through degeneracy.
>>
>>1705721
So animal rape is okay then?
>>
>There's also something called "artificial insemination" which practically is the same as sex or rape.
Son of a bitch,what you smoked?!
>>
>>1705690
>Animals can't communicate meaningfully enough with humans to provide proper consent,
Neither can paper cups but millions of people drink out of them every day without it.
>>
>>
>>1705745
>Stick object up into vulva
>Sprout in seed
Think of it like really, really quick sex.
>>
>>
>>1705753
>No, because no rape is morally okay, human or animal.
But why make not a difference for Humans and animals for rape when we do it for killing things and wearing their skin?
>>
>>1705753
Do you think I shouldn't use a cup for sexual intercourse just because it can't consent?
>>
>>1705764
>No,its a consensus thing,is not a rape.
I don't remember animals ever being asked for consent about being artificially inseminated.
>>
>>
>>1705748
>my argument hinges on treating sentient and non-sentient arguments the same way
>>
>>1705935
>I've already explained this twice. Try reading.
I did read, I never saw where you explained why Animals should be treated differently when it comes to things like killing them, enslaving them and purposely inbreeding them ((Like they do with show.-dogs)) but not when it comes to fucking them. Maybe I am missing it?
>>
>>1705690
>Animals can't communicate meaningfully enough with humans to provide proper consent,
I mean, if you were to bend over for a male dog, and it started fucking you.
That would pretty much be consent right?
>>
>>1706032
>sentience is special and matters
lmao
>>
>>1706120
if you did the same to a severely mentally retarded human that was incapable or a child below the age of consent of understanding the concept of consent it wouldn't be. you'd be done for molestation or some shit, same as with a dog
>>
>>1706300
are you saying humans don't require socialization?
On a message board?
>>
>>1706114
>I did read,
No, you didn't.
>I never saw where you explained why Animals should be treated differently when it comes to things like killing them, enslaving them and purposely inbreeding them ((Like they do with show.-dogs)) but not when it comes to fucking them.
Because you didn't read it.
> notions of consent are not just there to protect people from unwanted sexual advances. Consent is considered to be an essential part of the sexual experience, a basis of bonding between the pair. You can't have that with an animal.
>>
>>1706431
>Consent is considered to be an essential part of the sexual experience
No it isn't.
>>
>>1706431
Alright then, you are just arguing morally against it, not for it being banned or something right?
Thread posts: 26
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2