Screw free-range eggs; I want bondage eggs.

Castration with anastesia is better then bj?

Dorian_Gray said:
Castration with anastesia is better then bj?

Without. O-O

Is there really a law specifically forbidding bondage?

Chicken bondage... Everybody likes chicken bondage! :D

Highwayman300 said:
Oh would you look at this, another pro animal rapist.
The chicken bondage is pretty funny though.

And yet you're not addressing that it's legal to fist a cow but not to stick a comparatively small and untraumatic penis into said orifice. I'm not in favor of bestiality. What I AM in favor of, however, is a set of laws that doesn't contradict itself.

im more concerned that it looks like they are inseminating its ass. dick and fist aren't entering from same spot lol

Highwayman300 said:
Oh would you look at this, another pro animal rapist.
The chicken bondage is pretty funny though.

No one dont say that left thig is good, but they in thousand times better then right, BUT right thing is legal and left is illegal. Duble standarts this is taking about.

Highwayman300 said:
They benefit the people instead of a single individual. We need to do all of this in order to get our food or money. We don't need to go around fucking the animals.

So you're saying that what you think is "rape" is fine when it's for the sake of food that we are already in excess of in places that actually purchase dead cow for meals?

This isn't even an ad homined. This is almost exactly what you're saying. You're perpetuating a double standard that it's okay to sexually abuse animals for the sake of profit or food but nothing else. Are you going to rebut this by saying that it's not rape if the thing inserted inside isn't a penis because only males can rape? Because that's the only argument I can see you making on the path you're going.

Fuck the police. I do what I want.

I'd be pretty weary of giving a blowjob from that position, at least to an animal.

Beepmaster said:
Snip

Sadly he got a week suspension before he could get back on his soapbox to answer you.

Bondage chicken is best chicken.

Tinndir said:
Is there really a law specifically forbidding bondage?

It depends, some places have strange leash laws that disallow leashing within a yard. It stretches the definition but a simple leash is a form of bondage.

As for actual bondage gear, assuming one could find a set for an animal it would probably just be considered general animal abuse/misstreatment.

Tinndir said:
Is there really a law specifically forbidding bondage?

NeoCat said:
-general animal abuse/misstreatment.

There are surprisingly (or not, considering the 50 billion/year slaughter volume) few laws protecting the welfare of chickens. Bondage as seen would almost certainly be legal in the letter of law, but it's nice to hope that a court would punish anyone mistreating any animal.

OrangeLightning said:
Sadly he got a week suspension before he could get back on his soapbox to answer you.

Well, at least I'm not the only one who agrees with me.

trevorlanch said:
it's nice to hope that a court would punish anyone mistreating any animal.

Pretty much every franchise-level pet supply store that gets its stock from breeders would be an example of a group that gets away with it.

Shit sucks.

delyapple said:
Fuck the police. I do what I want.

You.

I like you.

Romvr said:
Chicken bondage... Everybody likes chicken bondage! :D

Honestly same?????

good post op....

The rage comments, I like them.

warriorking9001 said:
no but bondage relates to sex so probably at least frowned upon.

Well Often people would pit their arms into cows for various reasons in particularly Artificial insemination. Whilst the penis is bestiality, which is illegal.

The only thing that I can see here is that "it's illegal don't do it" is your platform rather than actually caring about the well-being of the animals. While I defend bestiality,

Beepmaster said:
I'm not in favor of bestiality [as a whole]. What I AM in favor of, however, is a set of laws that doesn't contradict itself.

Ergo; if you're going to make laws against people fucking their animals, you should in turn make laws against people forcibly breeding animals for food and profit. If your only argument after this is calling me a dogfucker or repeating an argument that's been given on this page, you have no business advertising your platform.

My point of view here is that if it's harmful to the animals as a whole, it shouldn't be allowed just because it benefits a species. If you're gonna argue about how it's the progression of the food chain, realize that no non-sapient animal in Earth's history other than our lineage has forced/caused other species to breed such that we could consume them as food. Imagine this: your purpose in life isn't to serve a god or be happy or anything fun.

Imagine that your entire existence is for the sake of being exploited in a literal sense for resources. That's my platform against the "INSEMINATION IS OKAY BUT SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ISN'T" platform.

warriorking9001 said:
dude. I have no platform. But I just say it like it is currently. So please calm down. I didn't mean to offend you on any front, but if you are offeneded I apologize. Also, though this may strengthen your resolve to hate me. I see it as wrong to want to have sex with a real, nonsentient animal. ALSO, on your argument against artificial insemination. it is often a safer operation than natural and can reduce disease risk as well as bring better genetics in animals. my citation on that last fact is

http://animalsmart.org/animal-science/the-fields-of-animal-science/breeding-and-genetics/learn-more-about-artificial-insemination

Firstly: I am not offended by any means. I just feel strongly about what I say, and I am sorry if my tone comes off as harsh. Really, I just like a good debate or even just an exchange of ideas that isn't basically just "my opinion >> your opinion, nananananananna :PPPPP"

Secondly, you say this, but you appear to misunderstand what "sentient" means. Sentient is a word derived from the Latin "sentire": to feel or perceive. Being that the average animal has a brain and therefore nerve endings and a mind, they are indeed sentient by all stretches of the definition that aren't basically "primates and dolphins" (A NOTE ON THAT: Sentience =/= sapience. Sentience is the ability to perceive/feel. Sapience is the Latin-to-French-to-English adoption of "sapientia," meaning "good taste, sense, intelligence, or wisdom"). If you are going to admonish this statement as false, you are acknowledging that you do not know the source of the human mind and therefore that the human mind does not exist and that we are just as non-sentient.

Thirdly, I am aware that it is "safer" than natural, but that is not a rebuttal to my argument that we are forcing animals to birth offspring whose only purpose is to live, eat, shit, breed if they're good enough, and ultimately die. That the only purpose that animal livestock has in life is to provide to the human race. Let's throw an ad homined in as a worthwhile argument: how do you feel about the concept of a communist society where the literal purpose of most-to-all action is to serve the government? The ones perceived as either a collection of gods/saviors/whatever floats their boat? How do you feel about the idea that the entire purpose of your existence is to provide some end-user benefit to your leader/God/what have you? How do you feel about the idea that you are killed off upon a major injury because there is no way in which you can be of use to anyone with a broken leg?

Though my argument is literally (see definition) pathetic, surely it stands and can be respected. I may not have documents or refutable/any sources, but I do have ideas with actual ground. Here's a fun question: defend animal-based agriculture without citing purposes such as food or economy. Because chances are, you can't. While I will still enjoy a hearty steak on many occasions, I enjoy thinking, and I enjoy a place where I can make a point to help others think.

warriorking9001 said:
AYou're humanizing animals and assume they have feelings and a sense of self. All that animals before us thought was survive, so this point is moot

would you like to offer proof that animals do not have emotions? I don't see your point. If you'd like to point out that I'm humanizing animals, let me ask you this: How are we different from the animals we breed? That we're more "intelligent" and are somehow able to establish some faulty belief in a deity? Does that make it right?

warriorking9001 said:
If sharks figured out how to farm, they would.

So you're using the food chain argument as a justification? We are the only species that, within human history, has literally forced their prey to breed for the sake of becoming food.

To quote myself,

You're perpetuating a double standard that it's okay to sexually abuse animals for the sake of profit or food but nothing else. [order shift] This isn't even an ad homined. This is almost exactly what you're saying.

Beepmaster said:
Firstly: I am not offended by any means. I just feel strongly about what I say, and I am sorry if my tone comes off as harsh. Really, I just like a good debate or even just an exchange of ideas that isn't basically just "my opinion >> your opinion, nananananananna :PPPPP"

Secondly, you say this, but you appear to misunderstand what "sentient" means. Sentient is a word derived from the Latin "sentire": to feel or perceive. Being that the average animal has a brain and therefore nerve endings and a mind, they are indeed sentient by all stretches of the definition that aren't basically "primates and dolphins" (A NOTE ON THAT: Sentience =/= sapience. Sentience is the ability to perceive/feel. Sapience is the Latin-to-French-to-English adoption of "sapientia," meaning "good taste, sense, intelligence, or wisdom"). If you are going to admonish this statement as false, you are acknowledging that you do not know the source of the human mind and therefore that the human mind does not exist and that we are just as non-sentient.

Thirdly, I am aware that it is "safer" than natural, but that is not a rebuttal to my argument that we are forcing animals to birth offspring whose only purpose is to live, eat, shit, breed if they're good enough, and ultimately die. That the only purpose that animal livestock has in life is to provide to the human race. Let's throw an ad homined in as a worthwhile argument: how do you feel about the concept of a communist society where the literal purpose of most-to-all action is to serve the government? The ones perceived as either a collection of gods/saviors/whatever floats their boat? How do you feel about the idea that the entire purpose of your existence is to provide some end-user benefit to your leader/God/what have you? How do you feel about the idea that you are killed off upon a major injury because there is no way in which you can be of use to anyone with a broken leg?

Though my argument is literally (see definition) pathetic, surely it stands and can be respected. I may not have documents or refutable/any sources, but I do have ideas with actual ground. Here's a fun question: defend animal-based agriculture without citing purposes such as food or economy. Because chances are, you can't. While I will still enjoy a hearty steak on many occasions, I enjoy thinking, and I enjoy a place where I can make a point to help others think.

I'm glad you're not mad about this. Though, allow me to backpedal a bit and explain my nonsentience argument a bit better.

I I mean in that an animal is nonsentient is that, unlike humans, they don't have a recognized will, the idea of 'I am here and I exist' in that way. A cow has no drive to aspire to some goal or do something meaningful. to quote you, all they really care about is to live, eat, shit, breed if they're good enough so they can pass on their genes. To quote the late robin williams.

We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman, "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and <bold> identity </bold> ; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play *goes on* and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?

I emphasize identity because we have that passion and drive to do more than just survive. Shakespeare; mozart; Whitman; hell, The modern world as we know it AND the internet down to this very site could never have existed if we were still hunter gatherers taking all of our effort trying to make sure we had the bare essentials. Whether what we do to animals is good bad or otherwise: humanity couldn't stay together like it does without it.

warriorking9001 said:
I'm glad you're not mad about this. Though, allow me to backpedal a bit and explain my nonsentience argument a bit better.

I I mean in that an animal is nonsentient is that, unlike humans, they don't have a recognized will, the idea of 'I am here and I exist' in that way. A cow has no drive to aspire to some goal or do something meaningful. to quote you, all they really care about is to live, eat, shit, breed if they're good enough so they can pass on their genes. To quote the late robin williams.

We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman, "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and <bold> identity </bold> ; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play *goes on* and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?

I emphasize identity because we have that passion and drive to do more than just survive. Shakespeare; mozart; Whitman; hell, The modern world as we know it AND the internet down to this very site could never have existed if we were still hunter gatherers taking all of our effort trying to make sure we had the bare essentials. Whether what we do to animals is good bad or otherwise: humanity couldn't stay together like it does without it.

----------------------------------------------------

Animals are nonsentient in that, unlike humans, they don't have a recognized will.

And this will is unrecognized by who, now? Oh, right. Humankind. This will is unrecognized by humankind. The people that directly benefit from farming.

the idea of 'I am here and I exist' in that way.

How would you know that, secondly? Animals cannot speak. Does this mean that when a human's cognitive abilities are damaged so badly that rendering speech is practically a worthless endeavor, that they officially have no will and do not exist?

A cow has no drive to aspire to some goal or do something meaningful.

This is true; there are likely no cows outside of Barnyard (TM) that have done anything of use for society other than provide food, and in the case of Barnyard (TM), absolutely nothing changes. However, I'm going to play the devil's advocate simply to make you think, because I believe that this can be argued around:

All they really care about is to live, eat, shit, breed if they're good enough so they can pass on their genes.

Couldn't the same be said of all of humankind? We are born, we eat, we shit, we breed if we're good enough so that we can pass on our genes. I am not denying that what you say may be true, but here's an idea: What if an alien species with no understanding of our language or religion decided to cultivate the earth as their land. Would they take notice of large effigies of what appear to be other humans? Would they notice our religion, our history, our scientific/mathematical progress, our endeavors as a society in the past 10,000 years?

Now to apply this back to my argument: Would we notice any attempts by animals to do things that the natural human process does not understand? How do you believe that you have the right to give a judgment such as "they have no recognized will" as if you don't know, but you don't see it and therefore it isn't there?

We cannot visibly see cells. However, in 1665, upon peering into a microscope, Robert Hooke was able to see individual nuclei in what appeared to be boxes, which he named cells. My point is that just because something is not visible to the average human being does not mean that it is not there.

To quote the late robin williams:

We don't read and write poetry because it's cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman, "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?" Answer. That you are here - that life exists, and <bold> identity </bold> ; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. That the powerful play *goes on* and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?

It does not seem like you're quoting him for any particular reason. Would you mind elaborating on this point a bit more? I think that this could really be used to spark some really interesting discussion if you used it to bolster your argument by splicing in bits and pieces of the quote rather than just quoting a block of text and expecting me to understand EXACTLY what your point was, based off of another man's words.

I emphasize identity because we have that passion and drive to do more than just survive. Shakespeare; mozart; Whitman; hell, The modern world as we know it AND the internet down to this very site could never have existed if we were still hunter gatherers taking all of our effort trying to make sure we had the bare essentials. Whether what we do to animals is good bad or otherwise: humanity couldn't stay together like it does without it.

So your argument as to why I cannot stick my dick into a cow is that it is not sentient because unlike us, cows have not made what we have perceived to be music, religion, art, literature, et cetera. That you are justifying agriculture with our current accomplishments. In other words, you are saying that because they are not human, we can do whatever we want to them. How selfish. :V

Joking ad homined aside, I respect this argument. but now, back to the original topic: your argument was that it is unethical to stick your dick into a cow because the cow is unaware of its own existence, or nonsentient (I would personally say nonsapient, but whatever). How do you feel about me sticking my dick into a fleshlight, then? My fleshlight is, like a cow, nonsentient/nonsapient, has not made music, religion, art, literature, etc, has no passion, and is produced for the sheer purpose of serving the very things that forced its existence: humans.

Is having sex with a fleshlight unethical now, because it has no emotions or will? To play the straight man again, why is it ethical to fuck a fleshlight and not to fuck a cow?

warriorking9001 said:
I'll pull out what may be the most obvious thing I'll say, bestiality is rape. They do not even have the mental capacity to give consent.

They also do not even have the mental capacity to refuse consent. Or to recognize that they are being raped.

What makes it not rape when you stick your hand (which is comparatively much larger than the average human penis, mind you) into a cow for the sake of procreation? How is it suddenly not rape because it benefits something? Is it fair for a man to force down and brutally fuck his wife because he wants to have children, regardless of whether she does or not? How about a girl that he's held in his complete control for literal years?

Beepmaster said:
----------------------------------------------------

And this will is unrecognized by who, now? Oh, right. Humankind. This will is unrecognized by humankind. The people that directly benefit from farming.

How would you know that, secondly? Animals cannot speak. Does this mean that when a human's cognitive abilities are damaged so badly that rendering speech is practically a worthless endeavor, that they officially have no will and do not exist?

This is true; there are likely no cows outside of Barnyard (TM) that have done anything of use for society other than provide food, and in the case of Barnyard (TM), absolutely nothing changes. However, I'm going to play the devil's advocate simply to make you think, because I believe that this can be argued around:

Couldn't the same be said of all of humankind? We are born, we eat, we shit, we breed if we're good enough so that we can pass on our genes. I am not denying that what you say may be true, but here's an idea: What if an alien species with no understanding of our language or religion decided to cultivate the earth as their land. Would they take notice of large effigies of what appear to be other humans? Would they notice our religion, our history, our scientific/mathematical progress, our endeavors as a society in the past 10,000 years?

Now to apply this back to my argument: Would we notice any attempts by animals to do things that the natural human process does not understand? How do you believe that you have the right to give a judgment such as "they have no recognized will" as if you don't know, but you don't see it and therefore it isn't there?

We cannot visibly see cells. However, in 1665, upon peering into a microscope, Robert Hooke was able to see individual nuclei in what appeared to be boxes, which he named cells. My point is that just because something is not visible to the average human being does not mean that it is not there.

It does not seem like you're quoting him for any particular reason. Would you mind elaborating on this point a bit more? I think that this could really be used to spark some really interesting discussion if you used it to bolster your argument by splicing in bits and pieces of the quote rather than just quoting a block of text and expecting me to understand EXACTLY what your point was, based off of another man's words.

So your argument as to why I cannot stick my dick into a cow is that it is not sentient because unlike us, cows have not made what we have perceived to be music, religion, art, literature, et cetera. That you are justifying agriculture with our current accomplishments. In other words, you are saying that because they are not human, we can do whatever we want to them. How selfish. :V

Joking ad homined aside, I respect this argument. but now, back to the original topic: your argument was that it is unethical to stick your dick into a cow because the cow is unaware of its own existence, or nonsentient (I would personally say nonsapient, but whatever). How do you feel about me sticking my dick into a fleshlight, then? My fleshlight is, like a cow, nonsentient/nonsapient, has not made music, religion, art, literature, etc, has no passion, and is produced for the sheer purpose of serving the very things that forced its existence: humans.

Is having sex with a fleshlight unethical now, because it has no emotions or will? To play the straight man again, why is it ethical to fuck a fleshlight and not to fuck a cow?

1: I'd be happy to elaborate my robin williams quote. I used it because It states how as humans we aspire for more than just survival, We have a purpose we feel that goes far beyond just our lives, and I'm not even talking about religion. We have art, poetry, music, romance, love! and all of these things that go far beyond simple minded day to day survival.
2: to your fleshlight question. The reason the former is ethical and the latter is not is because... though you may throw this in my face. They are more than an object. How YOU and others keep saying animals have rights, they are above mere objects even if they are below us as our food, a fleshlight is an inanimate object designed by human hands for that type of pleasure, whilst a cow or other animal is not designed nor intended to be used by humans in that way, and so with that the cow still is a living being it would be insulting to violate them in that way.
3: I am, as you put it 'justifying agriculture with our accomplishments' because we could not have even created most art and our worlds' treasures without agriculture as a backbone to get food for our people so individuals could do something OTHER than get food, which that ability is the basis of civilization, a lot of major trade, and art. As well as everything else we have today because someone could take the time to figure it out.
4: I meant by not a 'recognized will' in that animals will make decisions almost always directly based on a benefit vs a consequence. for example a mouse going through a maze for a food reward. It cared not for the maze or to show its intelligence through a mental exercise, it just wanted the food reward.
5: no I am not saying a human being who cannot speak no longer has a will, because we as reasonable human beings already understand the concept of that free will and that concept of self and drive that so far only humans have evolved.

warriorking9001 said:
1: I'd be happy to elaborate my robin williams quote. I used it because It states how as humans we aspire for more than just survival, We have a purpose we feel that goes far beyond just our lives, and I'm not even talking about religion. We have art, poetry, music, romance, love! and all of these things that go far beyond simple minded day to day survival.
2: to your fleshlight question. The reason the former is ethical and the latter is not is because... though you may throw this in my face. They are more than an object. How YOU and others keep saying animals have rights, they are above mere objects even if they are below us as our food, a fleshlight is an inanimate object designed by human hands for that type of pleasure, whilst a cow or other animal is not designed nor intended to be used by humans in that way, and so with that the cow still is a living being it would be insulting to violate them in that way.

Secondly: Are cows designed to be used as livestock? How would you know what they were designed for? But whether we did or not, I'm pretty sure that unless you're incredibly religious, you do not believe that animals were made to be used by humans for food or economy.
3: I am, as you put it 'justifying agriculture with our accomplishments' because we could not have even created most art and our worlds' treasures without agriculture as a backbone to get food for our people so individuals could do something OTHER than get food, which that ability is the basis of civilization, a lot of major trade, and art. As well as everything else we have today because someone could take the time to figure it out.
4: I meant by not a 'recognized will' in that animals will make decisions almost always directly based on a benefit vs a consequence. for example a mouse going through a maze for a food reward. It cared not for the maze or to show its intelligence through a mental exercise, it just wanted the food reward.

1. Okay, that's fair. There's nothing to argue against in that, for it is a mere quote.
2. And they are above mere objects WHY? You say that we can forcibly breed them because we are more advanced than them, but like mine, your pathos rings out with a large, resounding "Why" when met with the question of if we can treat animals as if objects. In other words, you believe that they have rights. Why not the rights to not be forced to shove a fucking calf out of your vagina at every plausible interval of time?
3. But are we truly more important than these animals if they are not mere objects as you say?
4. Though more context would have been appreciated, "animals will make decisions almost always directly based on a benefit versus a consequence"? I do not believe that I understand, but from my interpretation, you are saying that animals will make decisions that they believe will benefit them. My response: how does allowing this human to shove his hand into my vagina and cause me to expend all resources I have in my body for the sake of sustaining myself and this unknown number of offspring in my womb for the time of my gestation period benefit me? (Speaking from the perspective of the livestock, of course.) What is the animal going to gain from undergoing the physical trauma of gestation and childbirth?

Let me remind you that I am arguing against the double standard of keeping artificial insemination of animals legal but not bestiality. I am reiterating this point because I feel that my point may end up lost in a sea of words.

5: no I am not saying a human being who cannot speak no longer has a will, because we as reasonable human beings already understand the concept of that free will and that concept of self and drive that so far only humans have evolved.

http://us.whales.org/issues/sentient-and-sapient-whales-and-dolphins

Secondly, you seem to be ignoring my points that all of your statements are based on human perception. That because we cannot see it, it is not there and we are never wrong as a species.

Beepmaster said:
They also do not even have the mental capacity to refuse consent. Or to recognize that they are being raped.

What makes it not rape when you stick your hand (which is comparatively much larger than the average human penis, mind you) into a cow for the sake of procreation? How is it suddenly not rape because it benefits something? Is it fair for a man to force down and brutally fuck his wife because he wants to have children, regardless of whether she does or not? How about a girl that he's held in his complete control for literal years?

1: I can understand your argument for the hand thing, but the simplest answer to that is that it is the only pontential way it can be done, also, (side note: damn you for making me look this up for my argument) a bull's penis can be 2-3 feet in length anyway, so it may not even be as 'assaulty' as you believe.
2: it is not fair your example because he is hurting and degradeing another sapient creature

warriorking9001 said:
1: I can understand your argument for the hand thing, but the simplest answer to that is that it is the only pontential way it can be done, also, (side note: damn you for making me look this up for my argument) a bull's penis can be 2-3 feet in length anyway, so it may not even be as 'assaulty' as you believe.
2: it is not fair your example because he is hurting and degradeing another sapient creature

1. I do not understand. I am saying that the sexual intercourse is unwelcomed no matter what. I am saying all of these things and I am not sure if you are listening. Secondly, I do not care how squeamish you are about looking up animal genitals. You are on an image board that is literally online for the sake of showcasing porn of anthropomorphic animals.

Also, "a bull's penis can be 2-3 feet in length anyway"? Length isn't the matter of importance. It's the width. The diameter.

2. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I am trying to show you that we cannot prove where the line of "sentient/sapient vs not" exists. How is my example "not fair"? Because he is "hurting/degrading another sapient creature"? How is this any different from fucking a cow? Are you even listening to the arguments I've made? Have you even taken them into consideration?

I'm done. End discussion. There's nothing more for either of us to get out of this. I shouldn't have expected a two-sided argument to last long on the internet without devolving into "your examples aren't fair, I'm not willing to consider them as legitimate because they make me uncomfortable!"

Beepmaster said:
1. Okay, that's fair. There's nothing to argue against in that, for it is a mere quote.
2. And they are above mere objects WHY? You say that we can forcibly breed them because we are more advanced than them, but like mine, your pathos rings out with a large, resounding "Why" when met with the question of if we can treat animals as if objects. In other words, you believe that they have rights. Why not the rights to not be forced to shove a fucking calf out of your vagina at every plausible interval of time?
3. But are we truly more important than these animals if they are not mere objects as you say?
4. Though more context would have been appreciated, "animals will make decisions almost always directly based on a benefit versus a consequence"? I do not believe that I understand, but from my interpretation, you are saying that animals will make decisions that they believe will benefit them. My response: how does allowing this human to shove his hand into my vagina and cause me to expend all resources I have in my body for the sake of sustaining myself and this unknown number of offspring in my womb for the time of my gestation period benefit me? (Speaking from the perspective of the livestock, of course.) What is the animal going to gain from undergoing the physical trauma of gestation and childbirth?

Let me remind you that I am arguing against the double standard of keeping artificial insemination of animals legal but not bestiality. I am reiterating this point because I feel that my point may end up lost in a sea of words.

http://us.whales.org/issues/sentient-and-sapient-whales-and-dolphins

Secondly, you seem to be ignoring my points that all of your statements are based on human perception. That because we cannot see it, it is not there and we are never wrong as a species.

1: I am not saying we are never wrong as a species, we'll never know if animals aside from primates and dolphins have true sapience, at least within our lifetime:.
2:

) What is the animal going to gain from undergoing the physical trauma of gestation and childbirth?

what will they gain? The passing on of their genes to the next generation is their end goal, so that is a big benefit for them...
3: I base this on human perception mainly because I am myself human. I cannot put myself in the eyes of a cow, and if I could I would be thinking as a human in a cow's body anyway.

Beepmaster said:
1. I do not understand. I am saying that the sexual intercourse is unwelcomed no matter what. I am saying all of these things and I am not sure if you are listening. Secondly, I do not care how squeamish you are about looking up animal genitals. You are on an image board that is literally online for the sake of showcasing porn of anthropomorphic animals.

Also, "a bull's penis can be 2-3 feet in length anyway"? Length isn't the matter of importance. It's the width. The diameter.

2. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I am trying to show you that we cannot prove where the line of "sentient/sapient vs not" exists. How is my example "not fair"? Because he is "hurting/degrading another sapient creature"? How is this any different from fucking a cow? Are you even listening to the arguments I've made? Have you even taken them into consideration?

I'm done. End discussion. There's nothing more for either of us to get out of this. I shouldn't have expected a two-sided argument to last long on the internet without devolving into "your examples aren't fair, I'm not willing to consider them as legitimate because they make me uncomfortable!"

1: I said I was uncomfortable looking it up because without this argument I'd have NO reason to know that fact
2: I understand that we cannot tell where the line between sapience and not is, but we don't know where it is and can't toss aside everything we know about raising food because we think a cow has feelings.
3: I said your example 'wasn't fair' because of the idea of expecting I would say ANYTHING other than the human example being wrong, BECAUSE IT IS.
4: I didn't mean to offend you or to say "you're not legitimate because you make me uncomfortable" but I honestly cannot look at your average farming cow and see it as somehow downtrodden. It's s cow, just bring a cow...

Y'KNOW WHAT!? YOU ARGUMENTS ARE LEGITIMATE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN BLOODY DO ABOUT WHAT WE DO UNLESS WE CHANGE EVERYTHING WE DO AS A SPECIES!...

*pants*

I apologize. I believe we should end the debate for now so we don't become more expasperated about it.

Damn, too drawn on, you too...

*sigh*

warriorking9001 said: "stuff"

Beepmaster said: "stuff"

I would want to side with the prior in terms of being "moral", but you just lack displaying enough evidence to dissuade otherwise. In all other means, you are a bit foggy with making any sense. Next time you want to argue on anything, make things clearer, not more mucky...

The later has actually provide enough to convince more to why we -- as humans -- are actually still wonky with how we truly have our laws set up, they way we deal with day-to-day matter, and are in need of redevising our matter.

So...

Beepmaster said:

...I'd say you're the overall winner of this debate.

Stay tuned to another political/moral/educational debate, right here... on E621! (insert e621 show's ending theme)

Anyways, we eat too much meat anyways, and are more then capable of feeding everyone with the farms we already have.

Actually, we could do better and do away with as many slaughterhouses we have up, though that would mean people would be losing their jobs, a necessary end since they could go and work for Kelloggs and make more grain-based products.

(actually, the animals get fed husks and other things, so that will not be necessary)

Too bad the big beef industry may want to bitch-slap me a bit, though only big-money win in the end... too much lobbying to go and make things better off for the animals in the long run...

Zoroark_the_Furvert said:
Anyways, we eat too much meat anyways, and are more then capable of feeding everyone with the farms we already have.

Actually, we could do better and do away with as many slaughterhouses we have up, though that would mean people would be losing their jobs, a necessary end since they could go and work for Kelloggs and make more grain-based products.

(actually, the animals get fed husks and other things, so that will not be necessary)

Too bad the big beef industry may want to bitch-slap me a bit, though only big-money win in the end... too much lobbying to go and make things better off for the animals in the long run...

I know I may be digging my own grave a bit by saying anything, but. What I was really trying to say is that I can't see our world if we completely got rid of domestic animals like the 'animal rights' groups are trying for, and I will admit my argument wasn't great simply because I don't get evidence for this type of thing beforehand.

Though I will say ONE thing about what YOU said. A lot of nutritional experts think we need to reduce the amount of grains we eat, at least from it being the most important part of our food pyramid. we were designed to eat more meat, fruit, and vegetables than we were to eat the overload of grain we do, and that may be a part of our obesity epidemic in america

Can you people please use

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Can you people please use

Sections?
Otherwise it clogs up the comment section greatly.

\[section]text[\/section]

sorry... still kinda new to e6 and its comment html stuffs

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Can you people please use

Sections?
Otherwise it clogs up the comment section greatly.

\[section]text[\/section]

Apologies. If given the opportunity to edit said posts, I'd like to add said sections in. But, I would like to make the statement that the entire purpose of this figure was, in equal parts, to make people laugh and to inspire discussion, and clearly it has done both. If long, drawn-out discussions from both sides weren't necessary/wanted, then what would the purpose of this clear political jab be?

Tinndir said:
Is there really a law specifically forbidding bondage?

It was a really slow day at the courthouse, okay?

NEUTRAL SWITZERLAND *waves Swiss flag*

Bondage chicken eggs? I need some

this was actually a really great read, thanks Beepmaster

didyoujust said:
this was actually a really great read, thanks Beepmaster

No problem. Political satire never dies, and thus never will my comments.

warriorking9001 said:

Ok having read through all of that. (very nice debate gentlemen.)

Allow me to add my few cents lol.

Ok as for sentiance and understanding of self.
we have it, so its not a large streach to think that most animals have some form of it.
I have an understanding of a tree what it is ect. A botanist has a much larger understanding of it than I do and my dog has a smaller understanding of it than I do.
But he still has some form of understanding.
Do animals have emotions it is completely undeniably obvious they do,
If you have ever owned a dog or cat and spent any time with them you can see and feel it
(I cant believe this is even debated over)

Animals can 100% give consent,
Try doing something with a horse or a dog that doesn't want you to do it, chances are your gonna get hurt or bitten.

Morals are nothing more than a matter of opinion.

I feel if both party's are consenting and nobody is getting hurt I dont have a problem with it.
Where you stick your penis or in your vagina is your business.

"We aren't going to bother two consenting adults who like to dress in leather boy scout uniforms smash eachother in the head with ballpean hammers while they take turns blowing their cat there is certainly nothing wrong with that..... And think of how good the cat must feel"
-George Carlin.

Acton98 said:
Thing.

Here's something that sticks in my mind: this model of consent is anthropocentric in nature. Or to relate a thought experiment; if you gave a lion the ability to speak (e.g. vocal chords), it would remain incomprehensible, as its ways of thinking are entirely alien or different from yours. Studies in neurology, for example, show the difference between how humans and rats dream. Their dreams last ten seconds at most, rapidly iterating on the day's experiences. Human dreams are more abstract, speculative, complex, and can last upwards of an hour. As consent is at least abstract in theory of mind, it remains an unknown as to whether an animal does or can understand consent like we do. Consider this- we also consider children incapable of giving sexual consent. This is not because they lack humanity, but rather that they cannot fully grasp the nature and ramifications of sexual consent until adulthood. Couldn't we say the same for nonhumans? In order to prove ability to give consent, we'd need an animal with emotional maturity and intelligence equal to or greater than an adult human; this seems unlikely as humans remain the only species capable of calculus.

tl;dr nonhumans are sentient, but not necessarily sapient. Human children are definitely of greater sentience than nonhuman animals. Therefore, how do we reconcile zoophilia without pedophilia?

Also, Jack Harkness Test! Totally valid.

MarathonMan said:
Here's something that sticks in my mind

Hmmm comparing zoophilia with pedophilia a good subject wich I think could even spark its own debate.
But I am going to go with the consent part first lol.
By consent I mean an adult nonhuman animal if you try to do something sexual or even otherwise with it and the animal decides it doesn't like or want that and fights back
(basically a primitive version of saying no)
As for children there brains are not yet developed and are still becoming themselves by absorbing what they can in their environment.
most things they dont know how to deal with properly for them yet.
(A lot of adults dont either lol)
Children are basically little sociopaths
Melding with and developing their sense of self based on what they are given.
Convince a child of something and keep telling them and being serious about it or scare them with it at the same time and it will be ingrained in them and chances are will carry on into adulthood.
Tell them something is bad and convince them and they will most likely believe this for the rest of their lives.
Or you could tell them its a good thing and get the same effect, wich is why in other countries thats why a lot of things they do seem so strange.... I seem to have gotten a bit off subject lol.
Anyway thats why pedophilia and zoophilia aren't the same. One animal (hopefully) is adult and the other is still understanding itself and is still learning so it cant make a responsible choice.

I so wish the edit window was longer than five minutes.

Acton98 said:
I so wish the edit window was longer than five minutes.

I'm of the favor that it shouldn't even exist in the first place.. all other forums on the net let us edit for eternity.

And I thought it was a simple thing to get a laugh from, but instead something to laugh harder at because of the rage comments.

THORONOS said:
And I thought it was a simple thing to get a laugh from, but instead something to laugh harder at because of the rage comments.

LoL

Acton98 said:
Hmmm comparing zoophilia with pedophilia a good subject wich I think could even spark its own debate.
But I am going to go with the consent part first lol.
By consent I mean an adult nonhuman animal if you try to do something sexual or even otherwise with it and the animal decides it doesn't like or want that and fights back
(basically a primitive version of saying no)
As for children there brains are not yet developed and are still becoming themselves by absorbing what they can in their environment.
most things they dont know how to deal with properly for them yet.
(A lot of adults dont either lol)
Children are basically little sociopaths
Melding with and developing their sense of self based on what they are given.
Convince a child of something and keep telling them and being serious about it or scare them with it at the same time and it will be ingrained in them and chances are will carry on into adulthood.
Tell them something is bad and convince them and they will most likely believe this for the rest of their lives.
Or you could tell them its a good thing and get the same effect, wich is why in other countries thats why a lot of things they do seem so strange.... I seem to have gotten a bit off subject lol.
Anyway thats why pedophilia and zoophilia aren't the same. One animal (hopefully) is adult and the other is still understanding itself and is still learning so it cant make a responsible choice.

More or less. It's quite idiotic to compare an immature human child with a fully mature adult animal. They are not really comparable.
Body language/courtship behavior and the like is how they give consent. Biting/attacking is how they tell you to eff off. How else do you think animals have sex in the wild? Unwilling bitches and mares for example can seriously maim the male; it is dumb for the male to try and force the issue.
If a mare consenting to letting a stallion mount her isn't rape, than neither is a mare who lets a human mount her, or a human who allows themselves to be mounted by a stallion. You can object to it based on subjective morality but objectively theres no difference.

I Have witnessed a mare being raped though. By a stallion. With human help. The look of terror in their eyes while they try and get away or kick out but can't because they are tied to a tree with their legs roped together so they can't kick is haunting.
So yeah anyone that thinks animals don't have emotions is a fucking retard.

Twigs said:
Is there really a law specifically forbidding bondage?

Think about chained dogs, what is forbidden in most countrys i know. (EU wise)

Beepmaster said:
They also do not even have the mental capacity to refuse consent. Or to recognize that they are being raped.

What makes it not rape when you stick your hand (which is comparatively much larger than the average human penis, mind you) into a cow for the sake of procreation? How is it suddenly not rape because it benefits something? Is it fair for a man to force down and brutally fuck his wife because he wants to have children, regardless of whether she does or not? How about a girl that he's held in his complete control for literal years?

gonna stop you there, im fairly sure animals do recognize being raped and it can damage them mentally.

diealein said:
gonna stop you there, im fairly sure animals do recognize being raped and it can damage them mentally.

Then why do we legalize it when we're collecting semen, forcing pregnancy, or forcing intercourse? Why is it legal then, but not with recreation?

People who make similar arguments to yours say it's about "animal rape," but not all sex for the sake of copulation is consented on both ends.

Yeah let's not with this entire debate, thanks.

Beepmaster said:
Then why do we legalize it when we're collecting semen, forcing pregnancy, or forcing intercourse? Why is it legal then, but not with recreation?

People who make similar arguments to yours say it's about "animal rape," but not all sex for the sake of copulation is consented on both ends.

i wasn't trying to make a comment on the rest of the conversation, just clarify a single point. i do not know nearly enough to give proper comment on any of this beyond that one thing really.

Hahaha, I kill animals for food. Don't judge me for being a predator. It's just that I have serious trouble digesting plant fiber and no problems digesting meat.

I don't care about the political and moral ramifications. I want to live in as little pain as possible, so I eat meat.

In the same vein, if I could not find a human partner for sexual gratification, I would fuck animals.

ITT: Words.

wow .

thats pretty good

xD

Logic

I'm going to use this comment section to write a philosophy book at this point

Bondage is legal and it is common for horse breeders to tie up the mare to prevent her from kicking the stallion, and to make sure they get what they paid for.

While I consider it morally wrong to deprive an animal from giving or rejecting consent by means of bondage, it shouldn't be illegal if no harm or neglect is caused.

This applies to bestiality in general. Consent is not relevant in any other action humans do with their pets, including surgery and euthanasia. Rather the law is concerned with whether or not abuse and neglect are present.

Sexual acts are not an exception. Laws are in place because bestiality is regarded as always abuse regardless of whether or not abuse is present. This does run into fascinating contradictions.

A vet inserting a finger anally to check for hernias is not abuse. The dogs owner doing so is. A male dog mounting a female dog is not abuse. A male dog mounting a woman is.

This false dichotomy likely won't be recognized anytime soon. Who wants to be the judge famous for declaring a dog fucker not guilty?

This is not to say dogs can't consent, just that it should be legally irrelevant. Dogs are not sentient, but they are emotive and they are able to clearly express whether they enjoy or dislike a given actuvity. If a dog loves fetch, she will bring you her ball and get all up in your face about it. Dogs are also powerful animals. They have teeth, and they will growl first if they want to give you a sold No.

I could base my essay based on these comments. Keep it coming.

If only this site had an "OP is trying to start shit" tag, because this post was TRULY meant to start shit, as evident by the comments...

Also, DON'T try to compare bestiality with ANYTHING. Just sayin'.

Romvr said:
Chicken bondage... Everybody likes chicken bondage! :D

You are single-handedly the reason I searched that on this website.

mighty impressive text walls, you two.

oh and regarding the chicken bondage: why hello there random Florida/Las Angeles/New Jersey man! (i've heard of cannibalism in one of these places as well as bestiality so i honestly wouldn't be surprised to hear about something like this)

F/LA/NJ man: hello! *random chicken run through the front door in bondage gear*

me: o_O uh... *backs away to leave slowly* ok...well, nice seeing you. i'm just gonna...yeah... *leaves quickly*

laws are weird

@ Beepmaster: At first, I started to comment on one of your posts here. I think it was the first one. But then I scrolled down. And down. And down. And I read more and more about how you want to fuck cows; how you compared artificial insemination to literally sticking your dick in a cow. And I gave up.

I DO have one question for you. If you were to fuck a cow, would you expect said cow to get pregnant? I mean, if you waited for all the various factors to line up (the perfect time of month/year to arrive for fertilization) and saved up your sperm, taking vitamins and other meds to enhance your own fertility to the maximum. ...would you expect a little cow human to come out? Cause that's what the whole 'fisting the cow' thing is about. It's not about just shoving your arm in there; it has the purpose of making the cow pregnant.

DracosBlackwing said:
@ Beepmaster: At first, I started to comment on one of your posts here. I think it was the first one. But then I scrolled down. And down. And down. And I read more and more about how you want to fuck cows; how you compared artificial insemination to literally sticking your dick in a cow. And I gave up.

I DO have one question for you. If you were to fuck a cow, would you expect said cow to get pregnant? I mean, if you waited for all the various factors to line up (the perfect time of month/year to arrive for fertilization) and saved up your sperm, taking vitamins and other meds to enhance your own fertility to the maximum. ...would you expect a little cow human to come out? Cause that's what the whole 'fisting the cow' thing is about. It's not about just shoving your arm in there; it has the purpose of making the cow pregnant.

DracosBlackwing said:
. . . And I read more and more about how you want to fuck cows; how you compared artificial insemination to literally sticking your dick in a cow. And I gave up. . .

And you're misreading what I'm saying when I've directly stated: I don't fuck animals nor do I want to. Therefore: since you're not listening, why should I bother giving you a serious response?

who would even want to blowjob a corkscrew penis(pig)?

AfroPoptart said:
im more concerned that it looks like they are inseminating its ass. dick and fist aren't entering from same spot lol

The user of the AI device places his hand in the cow's rectum to feel that the device is in the right place.

"People" said:
stuff

you guys... do know what site you're on... right?

leon2550 said:
you guys... do know what site you're on... right?

Yeah it is quite weird and bizarre
That there is an in depth debate and discussion
that revolves around the morality of bestiality vs artificial insemination
On a website that primarily consists of human on furry/zoophilia porn

Tranon said:
Yeah it is quite weird and bizarre
That there is an in depth debate and discussion
that revolves around the morality of bestiality vs artificial insemination
On a website that primarily consists of human on furry/zoophilia porn

Never thought I'd be in this ring again.

and well... what caused me to join in discussion in the first place was simply that I... I don't come from a farm background but when I was younger my family bred dogs and rabbits, and though I never really learned any kind of 'how to', I learned the practical reasons for AI and so it rustled my jimmies to compare farmers to real life bestiophiles (however you spell that)

I just wanted to suck a dog's dick...

I don't want to join what feels like a very cut and dry argument, but the amount of people saying incredibly stupid things is scary.

Animals have sentience, this is fact.
Animals can consent, this is fact.
Animals can be raped, this is fact.
Animals have emotions, this is really fucking obviously a fact!

Is this what happens when parents don't let their children have pets? They grow up thinking animals are just animated toys? Or food that moves?

Minus said:
I don't want to join what feels like a very cut and dry argument, but the amount of people saying incredibly stupid things is scary.

Animals have sentience, this is fact.
Animals can consent, this is fact.
Animals can be raped, this is fact.
Animals have emotions, this is really fucking obviously a fact!

Is this what happens when parents don't let their children have pets? They grow up thinking animals are just animated toys? Or food that moves?

As a student in college thats spent years studying things like this specifically, This comment here frustrated me the least.

OF COURSE animals can give fucking consent to things. If a cat can bite you to signify it doesnt want to be pet anymore, hell yes an animal will say yes or no to having fucking sex.

And the only conclusion I can draw from people that think animals cant think enough to consent is that they either don't respect animals as much as they want to believe and act like, or they have never seen an animal anywhere but on TV.

This isnt rocket science people.

My 2 cents?

I dont support bestiality but I dont shun it either. As long as youre not hurting the animal, do what you want.

If it is in obvious unnecessary distress or discomfort, and you keep doing what youre doing to it? THAT is the definition of TRUE animal abuse.

Not this shit about weather the cow wants to have a baby or not, because that's specifically a human concern.

Animals aren't humans, and while they may be sentient, making a case for them using how you would feel in the same situation will always just be an incorrect strawman argument.

Im not fussing at you Minus, thats just all for anyone else that happens to read it xD

This is so me x3

Acton98 said:
Animals can 100% give consent,
Try doing something with a horse or a dog that doesn't want you to do it, chances are your gonna get hurt or bitten.
...
I feel if both party's are consenting...

Necro woo!

The point of half the text on this page is that consent isn't as clear cut as it is with humans.

"If you don't fight it you give consent and thus it's not rape" is indeed a defense many rapists try and fail to defend themselves with. At some point you simply stop fighting because you don't want to get smacked in the face again. Animals too.

But even without that, let's take cats for example. I had some that were very active, and if the female was not feeling like it she'd give him a smack on the snout. Except when he does that neck-bite thing and she suddenly allows everything. Cuz that's how she was 'programmed'.

Consent ain't so clear.

The problem with discussing anything like this is that it always falls apart in a lot of sub-discussion that are mixed through another in an incomprehensible mess of apparently even quoting Shakespeare and comparing a completely lifeless fleshlight.

• If acute physical abuse happens, it's bad, we all agree. But does a forced pregnancy count as abuse?
• When, if at all, is it an "unwanted" pregnancy?
• Do animals need to give consent? Does a male mounting you imply consent?
• If so, where do we draw the line? Not fighting back is a weird measure, but what do we think of spraying pheromones to excite bulls? Is this not close to drugging someone?
• If I have consent(or not, depending on the previous issue), and I do not harm the animal, is it still bad?

Consent is weird, and is not linkable with what an animal "wants". If we take cuckoos, they do that thing where they plant their eggs in other birds nests. These hosts do not fight, they do not protest, they raise this cuckoo hatchling as their own. They love it and nurture it. No consent, but do want.

I was especially pleased with the bit where underage children were compared to animals. Where the only counterargument was "but the humans will later in their lives learn how to consent". I'm gonna use that.

It's only some places that beastiality is illegal, not every place, and I think there isn't a law about animals in bondage tbh.

The Comments.

post #1070887

GRASS_TASTES_BAD said:
What a fucking shit-show.

cute.

The bondage chicken is still making me laugh.

Beepmaster said:
cute.

my god dude, you are the best at what you do as far as trolls go; don't even pretend you're not

wizard0209 said:
my god dude, you are the best at what you do as far as trolls go; don't even pretend you're not

this guy gets it

Umm, yeah, the argument is not over whether or not I should have sex with animals. I am not putting that out as an opinion poll.

A better question is the likelihood that I will take kindly to any discourtesy from you over the fact that I am a zoophile. I will not, and I never will. It will always cause me to become annoyed with you, and in general, it will cause me to dislike you intensely.

I am and shall remain a zoophile. I am not asking you for your opinion on that. Your opinion is worthless to me, in how I govern my life, unless you have done something extraordinary to gain my esteem toward you.

You are not going to gain my esteem by telling me reasons why you think you are justified in being disrespectful toward me. You get other people to respect you by demonstrating yourself to have something about you that makes you worthwhile in their lives.

If all you have done, in my life, is insult me...and then tell me reasons why you think that you ought to insult me...then I have no respect for you at all, and you are ultimately worthless to me. You might think that you are going to change that fact by being mean to me on the Internet...but you won't.

I often debate this with my family on animal consent and welfare. A sibling is in a philosophy class as well.

A human cannot engage in sex with an animal because they cannot say no or yes. However, a dog will definitely snap at another dog as a refusal to be mated.
Some people cannot seem to understand this. Somehow, they feel the need to forcefully have their dog bred, by tying it down or holding them in place. They don't ask for the consent of the dog, even when it's clear the dog is very uncomfortable, they proceed. These humans disgust me.
Notice the contradiction? I believe it's primarily a religious backing on this.
You cannot have sex with an animal, whether or not they initiated it and if they are comfortable with it/enjoy it or not, but it's perfectly reasonable to breed your animals and use them whether or not they are comfortable with it.

That being said, dogs are often taken advantage of as they wish to please their human companions, to their own harm. This is why it is difficult to distinguish an animal that truly enjoys it for their self or is trained/abused to please a master.

Just because an animal cannot speak, does not mean it has no thought or feeling. Does a mute have emotion? Both can communicate. Your understanding of them or not doesn't mean anything in if they have will or not. Now, how a vegetative human has more value than a fully capable animal is beyond me. A dog is like a challenged person (much like teenagers actually) Human exceptionalism is despicable in my belief. Even wolves show more care for each other, and it's discounted by humans and are still persecuted.
Humans treat to animals no different than to an enemy in war: depersonalized, yet they are very much thinking beings.

Respect animals as people—should your definition of it differ—, not as humans or as objects. They are individual, living beings.

I mean...is there really a law specifically saying I can't dress a chicken in leather bondage gear?

Dutchnoob said:
Just stop fucking with animals in general. They don’t want to be cut up, they don’t want your tiny cock, they want to be left alone

If they didn't want to be eaten then why do they taste so good?

JaySergal said:
If they didn't want to be eaten then why do they taste so good?

If she didn’t want to get raped, why did she look so good?

Dutchnoob said:
If she didn’t want to get raped, why did she look so good?

I was just cracking a joke and you took it quite a few too many shades darker. That's not even comparable. That's just fucked, man.

y1 said:
I just wanted to suck a dog's dick...

Can relate

god thats are a lot of letters

Still want to cut some heads off

One day I'll be able to read this entire comment section

And here we have it again folks, people speaking about politics on a furry porn site. What intriguing picture will be the next to crash and burn? Stay tuned for the next episode of "furry politic crap" for more reasons to end your existance.

awrighty-then said:
And here we have it again folks, people speaking about politics on a furry porn site. What intriguing picture will be the next to crash and burn? Stay tuned for the next episode of "furry politic crap" for more reasons to end your existance.

I know, right?? I just wanted to look at pics, and wound up reading through walls of text just to get to the end of the comment section. god, just get it together and take that shit to dm's. not all of us want to talk moral politics

Lost my boner reading this wall of text. Back to square one.

Hmm, quite the controversial topic. I'm neutral about this.

i wish i could go back to when i didn't know insemination was a thing

gargle said:
Screw free-range eggs; I want bondage eggs.

this is for you https://e621.net/posts/2324394

Not sure if advocating veganism or bestiality.

delyapple said:
Fuck the police. I do what I want.

Redditor

A lot of the things brought up in the conversation falls apart when you realize that other primates like Chimps and Apes also do a lot of the same fucked up things we do, despite being of lower sapience.

Dolphins also do a lot of shit too, abusing and using other animals to get high or as a game of "pass the ball". Orcas (closer to a large toothed dolphin than a whale) will often times just kill seals and whales just for fun.

This is just apparently how nature is, with only a scant correlation to intelligence and "evil" actions.

Of course, you could argue that primates learn these things due to proximity to humans. But that wouldn't exactly explain why it's seen in those in remote areas as well.

felvoex said:
Not sure if advocating veganism or bestiality.

why not both! that way you can just make everyone mad

Beastility law are illogical manner. It's being done with the same ideology as the witch trials of the Middle Ages.

Be veg boys

Why did I spend so much time reading that debate.
'_'

god this comment thread is a shit show
my 2 cents: animals dont have moral concepts or the concept of consent but we do an animal can dislike or like something but seeing as they cannot speak they cannot communicate consent
maybe just idk dont fuck animals? or do i dont care about you i dont care about the animal youre forcing yourself on so do as you please but dont get all fucking pissy when people DO care how fucking hard is that to grasp
god i fucking hate humanity
im gonna go do something not stressful cus as much as i hate myself i really dont feel like subjecting myself to the stupidity of humans on a fucking site for sharing images
tl;dr i hate all of you and find somewhere else other than a site made for the express purpose of sharing images to debate about the human concept of morals and consent
if you respond to me im not responding back
i have a headache im gonna go talk to my bf and express actual feelings of care for another human being instead of debating the ethics of animal fucking in an echo chamber where every side is full of hypocritical self-contradicting idiotic assholes

none of you are going to change each others minds you just want to justify your own views to validate your feelings i get that youre all human you want to feel accepted but dont be an idiot and think that people wont contradict you obviously people are going to disagree no matter what youre talking about

have a nice day i dont wish harm or unhappiness upon any of you but i do want you all to actually think before you express yourselves (which i didnt do very well but eh fuck it im tired)

Technically it is legal to do bestiality in certain States

bloodsong said:
Technically it is legal to do bestiality in certain States

I wonder if these are the same states that want to outlaw abortion.

This comment section can easily burn through your upvotes and downvotes several times over.

Now I gotta come back again and again. Darn.

sigmathepixiedragon said:
Umm, yeah, the argument is not over whether or not I should have sex with animals. I am not putting that out as an opinion poll.

A better question is the likelihood that I will take kindly to any discourtesy from you over the fact that I am a zoophile. I will not, and I never will. It will always cause me to become annoyed with you, and in general, it will cause me to dislike you intensely.

I am and shall remain a zoophile. I am not asking you for your opinion on that. Your opinion is worthless to me, in how I govern my life, unless you have done something extraordinary to gain my esteem toward you.

You are not going to gain my esteem by telling me reasons why you think you are justified in being disrespectful toward me. You get other people to respect you by demonstrating yourself to have something about you that makes you worthwhile in their lives.

If all you have done, in my life, is insult me...and then tell me reasons why you think that you ought to insult me...then I have no respect for you at all, and you are ultimately worthless to me. You might think that you are going to change that fact by being mean to me on the Internet...but you won't.

The fact that this got any upvotes at all is quite troubling

dorian_gray said:
Castration with anastesia is better then bj?

With and without and having sex with a REAL animal is being sick.

that was a fun read.

hmm very interesting 🧐

i would like to get that low to blowjob dirty pig like that♡

beepmaster said:
[insert lots of text here]

Just wanted to say, if you're still around, you're awesome

raven_reverie said:
Just wanted to say, if you're still around, you're awesome

:)

Intercourse vs insemination

So sex without pregnancy versus pregnancy without sex

I'm confused on what this is trying to say. Just kill the damn animals no need to get all sexual. That's why we have bad dragon.

trevorlanch said:
There are surprisingly (or not, considering the 50 billion/year slaughter volume) few laws protecting the welfare of chickens. Bondage as seen would almost certainly be legal in the letter of law, but it's nice to hope that a court would punish anyone mistreating any animal.

for the most part animal welfare/abuse laws apply to all animals, with some exceptions, the most common are abuse/welfare laws for specific animals, and not laws that include all animals but specifically exclude some. (one hypothetical reasonable exceptions might be a law for coldweather areas specifying that dogs cannot be left outside in the winter over x amount of time, with specific cold weather breeds being exempt.)

and depending on the type of bondage, it would likely be legal, Caging, collar and leash, and harnes and leash are all technically types of bondage, and would be legal (in some places, leashes mandatory in public).

Bottom left: every trainers dream with their thick Blaziken girl.

romvr said:
Chicken bondage... Everybody likes chicken bondage! :D

Ok, bit of a missed opportunity...
You should have said cock(chicken)....

Folks, lets get our priorities straight here, nobody here is admittedly vegan 100% because i know you all would also be in line behind me or in front of me in any food chain restaurant so please, have the basic decency not to argue about shit that's normal like farm insemination process. Thats pretty standard especially when the female may have issues with receiving it from aggressive males in their rutting seasons. Why is everyone so hard intent to be this most moral figure yet nobody here legit knows jack shit of what they speak of. Fuck sometimes i wonder why us as a species live if all we do is be this fucking stupid and spoiled

But how about that funny chicken, eh?

furry tutorial

this is by far the worst comment section i have ever read

colchester said:
this is by far the worst comment section i have ever read

Fr

colchester said:
this is by far the worst comment section i have ever read

thanks, I try ♥

beepmaster said:
thanks, I try ♥

please dont fuck your dog

I will only say... ( ಠ ͜ʖಠ)

honestly what i think of all of these comments? damn. just damn. crazy stuff

i can't be bothered to read all this all i know is that beepmaster is now 7 years older from when this first started and is still responding and getting upvotes and i am like 80% sure thats funny

thatgayboy said:
for the most part animal welfare/abuse laws apply to all animals, with some exceptions, the most common are abuse/welfare laws for specific animals, and not laws that include all animals but specifically exclude some. (one hypothetical reasonable exceptions might be a law for coldweather areas specifying that dogs cannot be left outside in the winter over x amount of time, with specific cold weather breeds being exempt.)

and depending on the type of bondage, it would likely be legal, Caging, collar and leash, and harnes and leash are all technically types of bondage, and would be legal (in some places, leashes mandatory in public).

Definitely excluding. Something I’ve noted that animal welfar does not apply to “vermin” animals or “game” animals, and often times any kind of cruelty is allowed. There’s contests for how many of a species you can murder, for fucks sake, even in places with the strongest animal protection laws.
Wolves, coyotes, foxes, opposums, rats, snakes, and more are treated like sinners, as if their very existence is cause for punishment, in the cruelest way possible.
And even then, it’s for fun. How the hell one can support this is beyond me.

I admit I have always enjoyed this thread. It has serious thought to it on one side at least.
If you cannot argue for such a supposedly simple position (like why murder is bad, and yes, I’ve had to for someone playing extreme devils advocate and ignoring subjectivity), then something is wrong with you and or the position itself.

Bueno aquí el contexto...parece que se creó para gráficar unos ejemplos que respaldan su crítica política sobre la implementacion estúpida e inútil de leyes que no ayudan solucionar ni mejoran la situación.

https://m.facebook.com/CarlValentinSF/photos/a.323791764469058/416556231859277/?type=3&wtsid=rdr_0bFGgAKu3wleDHGKm

En fin allí lo tienen.

Argument going on for like 7 years

dick_flip_magee said:
i can't be bothered to read all this all i know is that beepmaster is now 7 years older from when this first started and is still responding and getting upvotes and i am like 80% sure thats funny

some people never grow up :p

cinn4947 said:
Argument going on for like 7 years

in my defense most of the activity was towards the very beginning

Lmao that chicken.

I'm just sayin'- I had a dream like this once, but the chicken and I were reversed.

afropoptart said:
im more concerned that it looks like they are inseminating its ass. dick and fist aren't entering from same spot lol

Skill issue v_v

Of course blowjob is legal
If you don't get caught UwU

I think the laws were made to prevent humans to performs such acts instead to protect the animal.

bluedog99 said:
Of course blowjob is legal
If you don't get caught UwU

Giving a blowjob to whom?

This is definitely the most disgusting comment section I've ever seen, I feel like I want to claw my eyes out, that's why most of the time I'm embarrassed to call myself furry. PLEASE DON'T FUCK REAL ANIMALS, even though they are sentient and have the "capacity to consent" (physically, never emotionally) this "consent" will never be 100% clear, they do not have a defined vocabulary or minimal intellect for this topic, Different animals may react in different ways when they don't like something, some may defend themselves and others may freeze in fear. Mutes can consent sexually because they can speak in Libra. If a dog is raped, what will it do? Will you call the police? Zoophiles are ridiculous and only think about their own pleasure, no animal wants to be trained to eat their smelly ass or have your dirty dick inside them, THEY ARE NOT GETTING SATISFACTION IN THIS, non-human animals don't "have sex" to feel pleasure, but rather for procreation, there is a difference between DOING for pleasure and doing for procreation and in the meantime feeling pleasure. "Ah, but they can defend themselves" I'm an 18 year old girl and I also have the ability to defend myself so can I be raped? If I'm paralyzed with fear then it wasn't rape? I hate artificial insemination as much as I hate bestiality, I'm vegan (I don't force people to be, but I would like them to be, although it remains a choice) I see some yiffs with fictional animal trainers with pokemon, but for me it's a fantasy with Pokewaifus, since most pokemons are very far from being real animals. Reading this comment section was upsetting, how come these people weren't banned? It will take me a long time to forget this, it is definitely traumatizing to be forced to suspect people on this site.

beepmaster said:
----------------------------------------------------

And this will is unrecognized by who, now? Oh, right. Humankind. This will is unrecognized by humankind. The people that directly benefit from farming.

How would you know that, secondly? Animals cannot speak. Does this mean that when a human's cognitive abilities are damaged so badly that rendering speech is practically a worthless endeavor, that they officially have no will and do not exist?

This is true; there are likely no cows outside of Barnyard (TM) that have done anything of use for society other than provide food, and in the case of Barnyard (TM), absolutely nothing changes. However, I'm going to play the devil's advocate simply to make you think, because I believe that this can be argued around:

Couldn't the same be said of all of humankind? We are born, we eat, we shit, we breed if we're good enough so that we can pass on our genes. I am not denying that what you say may be true, but here's an idea: What if an alien species with no understanding of our language or religion decided to cultivate the earth as their land. Would they take notice of large effigies of what appear to be other humans? Would they notice our religion, our history, our scientific/mathematical progress, our endeavors as a society in the past 10,000 years?

Now to apply this back to my argument: Would we notice any attempts by animals to do things that the natural human process does not understand? How do you believe that you have the right to give a judgment such as "they have no recognized will" as if you don't know, but you don't see it and therefore it isn't there?

We cannot visibly see cells. However, in 1665, upon peering into a microscope, Robert Hooke was able to see individual nuclei in what appeared to be boxes, which he named cells. My point is that just because something is not visible to the average human being does not mean that it is not there.

It does not seem like you're quoting him for any particular reason. Would you mind elaborating on this point a bit more? I think that this could really be used to spark some really interesting discussion if you used it to bolster your argument by splicing in bits and pieces of the quote rather than just quoting a block of text and expecting me to understand EXACTLY what your point was, based off of another man's words.

So your argument as to why I cannot stick my dick into a cow is that it is not sentient because unlike us, cows have not made what we have perceived to be music, religion, art, literature, et cetera. That you are justifying agriculture with our current accomplishments. In other words, you are saying that because they are not human, we can do whatever we want to them. How selfish. :V

Joking ad homined aside, I respect this argument. but now, back to the original topic: your argument was that it is unethical to stick your dick into a cow because the cow is unaware of its own existence, or nonsentient (I would personally say nonsapient, but whatever). How do you feel about me sticking my dick into a fleshlight, then? My fleshlight is, like a cow, nonsentient/nonsapient, has not made music, religion, art, literature, etc, has no passion, and is produced for the sheer purpose of serving the very things that forced its existence: humans.

Is having sex with a fleshlight unethical now, because it has no emotions or will? To play the straight man again, why is it ethical to fuck a fleshlight and not to fuck a cow?

Wow this guy fucks! (animals…)

juwulia said:
This is definitely the most disgusting comment section I've ever seen, I feel like I want to claw my eyes out, that's why most of the time I'm embarrassed to call myself furry. PLEASE DON'T FUCK REAL ANIMALS, even though they are sentient and have the "capacity to consent" (physically, never emotionally) this "consent" will never be 100% clear, they do not have a defined vocabulary or minimal intellect for this topic, Different animals may react in different ways when they don't like something, some may defend themselves and others may freeze in fear. Mutes can consent sexually because they can speak in Libra. If a dog is raped, what will it do? Will you call the police? Zoophiles are ridiculous and only think about their own pleasure, no animal wants to be trained to eat their smelly ass or have your dirty dick inside them, THEY ARE NOT GETTING SATISFACTION IN THIS, non-human animals don't "have sex" to feel pleasure, but rather for procreation, there is a difference between DOING for pleasure and doing for procreation and in the meantime feeling pleasure. "Ah, but they can defend themselves" I'm an 18 year old girl and I also have the ability to defend myself so can I be raped? If I'm paralyzed with fear then it wasn't rape? I hate artificial insemination as much as I hate bestiality, I'm vegan (I don't force people to be, but I would like them to be, although it remains a choice) I see some yiffs with fictional animal trainers with pokemon, but for me it's a fantasy with Pokewaifus, since most pokemons are very far from being real animals. Reading this comment section was upsetting, how come these people weren't banned? It will take me a long time to forget this, it is definitely traumatizing to be forced to suspect people on this site.

You bringing this up doesn't make it any better, it's a 7 or 8 year old image. I find it ridiculous that flames are reaching this height on an image that's nearing a decade old. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm technically contributing to it, I just don't feel like this is something that should be going on for this long.)

And why are you mentioning that you're vegan? That's not relevant.

Bondage chicken... I've seen everything.

dorian_gray said:
No one dont say that left thig is good, but they in thousand times better then right, BUT right thing is legal and left is illegal. Duble standarts this is taking about.

Learn. Proper. English

beepmaster said:
would you like to offer proof that animals do not have emotions? I don't see your point. If you'd like to point out that I'm humanizing animals, let me ask you this: How are we different from the animals we breed? That we're more "intelligent" and are somehow able to establish some faulty belief in a deity? Does that make it right?

So you're using the food chain argument as a justification? We are the only species that, within human history, has literally forced their prey to breed for the sake of becoming food.

To quote myself,

beepmaster said:
some people never grow up :p

in my defense most of the activity was towards the very beginning

"Some people never grow up"says the guy defending zoophilia

talk1ng-sheep1sh said:
You bringing this up doesn't make it any better, it's a 7 or 8 year old image. I find it ridiculous that flames are reaching this height on an image that's nearing a decade old. (Yes, I'm aware that I'm technically contributing to it, I just don't feel like this is something that should be going on for this long.)

And why are you mentioning that you're vegan? That's not relevant.

I mentioned this precisely because the topic here is animal abuse, and artificial insemination done to cows as shown in the image is done in the meat industry.

juwulia said:
...THEY ARE NOT GETTING SATISFACTION IN THIS, non-human animals don't "have sex" to feel pleasure, but rather for procreation, there is a difference between DOING for pleasure and doing for procreation and in the meantime feeling pleasure.

This is a misconception, or at the very least very unlikely. Animals display many behaviours that suggest they have sex, and masturbate, for pleasure. Most animals, humans included, are motivated by pleasure, and to avoid pain. It's why drugs, and other chemicals that give us dopamine hits can be so addictive. Animals are wired to seek pleasure, reproduction is a side effect of that pleasure seeking behaviour when it comes to sex. Since you seem to care a lot about animals, I assume you care about having a better understanding of them. Here is some relevant reading on wikipedia that may be of interest on the topic.