Freedom is at stake!!

[CDFS]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

First, to clear something up, a farmer artificially inseminating an animal is NOT sex (you seemed confused about it). The act could be considered sexual, but it's not sex. PM me if you need further description of sex versus sexual (a man takes his wee wee and puts it in the lady's hoo hoo...).


President Clinton?

 

[PiperInAlberta]

Originally Posted by scarphe

basci probelm with your stance is this you argeu sexual itnercouse is wrong with an animal because they cannto consent, so they have to to have their bodies nto to be violated, but they do not have the basic right to life(my refecne to genocide). we will not **** but you we can kill when we feel like it. if you donto see the right´s problem in your position, you might as well eat grass and wait for the bolt gun.

Like I said before, moral relativism. I believe that it is right to outlaw beastiality while at the same time kill that animal and eat it. We need to eat, but we don't need to **** animals (and indeed shouldn't).

So you don't eat animal products of any kind?

 

[PiperInAlberta]

Originally Posted by CDFS

President Clinton?

Well, if former President Bill Clinton can inseminate a pig and get away with it...

 

[CDFS]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

Providing food is not a greater good? Your argument here goes against your previous one that if sex with an animal is illegal, then any other act someone may construe as sexual should be illegal too (that's absolutism). I may consider the act of sticking a tube up someone's rear as sexual, therefore that act being committed against a child should be illegal (if I was to take your early absolutist stance).

Ah you misconstrued my argument. Perhaps, I've not been clear. I am not saying that any other act similar should be illigal. I'm pointing out that animal welfare is clearly not the raison d'être of this new law. However, if thruth be told several animal rights activist parties have approved this law as a step in that direction.

This law is about propriety, nothing more.

By the way and again. Pedophilia has no bearing on this discussion.

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

Like I said before, moral relativism. I believe that it is right to outlaw beastiality while at the same time kill that animal and eat it. We need to eat, but we don't need to **** animals (and indeed shouldn't). So you don't eat animal products of any kind?
on what basis, can you give them the right nto to be violated but can be killed on whim. even moral relatiism has a reasoning and needs to be logically sound. you give them the right nto be violated that ssues the animal has some will, since only a being with will can be violated. why would you ignore it´s will when it comes to it´s death? no i eat them, but i do nto give them any rights at all, if their owner wants put them in fights torture them, kill them, or ******** with them. they are property nothing more.

 

[CDFS]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

So you don't eat animal products of any kind?
Again, this has no bearing on the subject. Clearly srapche is not advocating a total ban of the consumption of meat.

 

[PiperInAlberta]

Originally Posted by CDFS

Ah you misconstrued my argument. Perhaps, I've not been clear. I am not saying that any other act similar should be illigal. I'm pointing out that animal welfare is clearly not the raison d'être of this new law. However, if thruth be told several animal rights activist parties have approved this law as a step in that direction.

This law is about propriety, nothing more.

By the way and again. Pedophilia has no bearing on this discussion.

I already explained my reason for using the pedophilia argument as an example.

So you see this law as possibly being a quiet stepping stone to more strict laws regarding morality (i.e. with regards to homosexuality, religon etc)? If that is indeed the case then yes, I misunderstood your argument as your stance wasn't too clear to start.

on what basis, can you give them the right nto to be violated but can be killed on whim. even moral relatiism has a reasoning and needs to be logically sound. you give them the right nto be violated that ssues the animal has some will, since only a being with will can be violated. why would you ignore it´s will when it comes to it´s death?

no i eat them, but i do nto give them any rights at all, if their owner wants put them in fights torture them, kill them, or ******** with them. they are property nothing more.

Humans need to eat. Eating other creatures is a natural occurance.

Humans do not need to ******** with animals, watch them fight for their own amusement or torture them for fun.

Exactly why it's called moral relativism. I see no issue with eating meat or wearing a leather coat...sure the animal was killed but it served a purpose. I see no necessity or usefulness in watching two animals fight or sticking a dick into one. Your moral compass may be different.

 

[CDFS]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

I already explained my reason for using the pedophilia argument as an example.

So you see this law as possibly being a quiet stepping stone to more strict laws regarding morality (i.e. with regards to homosexuality, religon etc)? If that is indeed the case then yes, I misunderstood your argument as your stance wasn't too clear to start.



Humans need to eat. Eating other creatures is a natural occurance.

Humans do not need to ******** with animals, watch them fight for their own amusement or torture them for fun.

Exactly why it's called moral relativism. I see no issue with eating meat or wearing a leather coat...sure the animal was killed but it served a purpose. I see no necessity or usefulness in watching two animals fight or sticking a dick into one. Your moral compass may be different.

Zoophilia is a natural occurance as wel. How do I know? It happens, in, nature..

 

[scarphe]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

Humans need to eat. Eating other creatures is a natural occurance.

Humans do not need to ******** with animals, watch them fight for their own amusement or torture them for fun.

Exactly why it's called moral relativism. I see no issue with eating meat or wearing a leather coat...sure the animal was killed but it served a purpose. I see no necessity or usefulness in watching two animals fight or sticking a dick into one. Your moral compass may be different.
you ignore mypoints completely....
no sorry that is not moral relativism, if you think it soemthing that can be used to support postions that have no reason or logic, the bus for special people is waitng for you. yes there is nto abosolute, but you are making a rights arguemtn giving animals will. even with moral relativism you need to have arguemtn checked and your is clearly not
adio

 

[PiperInAlberta]

Originally Posted by CDFS

Zoophilia is a natural occurance as wel. How do I know? It happens, in, nature..

Humans and animals ********** is a natural occurance? While inter species sex happens in the wild among wild animals...it is rare in our day and age, especially among mammals.

Zoophilia means beastiality (it's just a nicer way of saying it). Which is not natural. How often have you seen a moose giving it hot and heavy to a sheep (I'm sure it's happened, but these are one-off occurances)?

Anyways, it's been fun debating beastiality for a few hours but I'm headed off shift which means I'm off the computer. I'll be available for another entertaining debate in 12 hours or so. Can we pick something more amusing next time, like debating celebrity bikini bodies?

 

[Harold falcon]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

Humans and animals ********** is a natural occurance? While inter species sex happens in the wild among wild animals...it is rare in our day and age, especially among mammals.

Obviously sir, you've never been to Virginia.

 

[PiperInAlberta]

Originally Posted by scarphe

you ignore mypoints completely....
no sorry that is not moral relativism, if you think it soemthing that can be used to support postions that have no reason or logic, the bus for special people is waitng for you. yes there is nto abosolute, but you are making a rights arguemtn giving animals will. even with moral relativism you need to have arguemtn checked and your is clearly not
adio

How do I know animals have 'will' (I think that's what you're asking)? They react to pain, pleasure and other external stimuli. They exhibit affection, distrust and fear.

But I still have no qualms eating them, just like I have no qualms with killing humans given the right reasons and circumstances.

 

[PiperInAlberta]

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

Obviously sir, you've never been to Virginia.

 

[imageWIS]

Three pages and no one has used the term 'sheep ******'? I'm disappointed...

 

[CDFS]

Originally Posted by PiperInAlberta

Humans and animals ********** is a natural occurance? While inter species sex happens in the wild among wild animals...it is rare in our day and age, especially among mammals. Zoophilia means beastiality (it's just a nicer way of saying it). Which is not natural. How often have you seen a moose giving it hot and heavy to a sheep (I'm sure it's happened, but these are one-off occurances)? Anyways, it's been fun debating beastiality for a few hours but I'm headed off shift which means I'm off the computer. I'll be available for another entertaining debate in 12 hours or so. Can we pick something more amusing next time, like debating celebrity bikini bodies?
Ah, you mean natural in a that very restrictive way. Have a nice day at work.