is it ok to screw animals? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: is screwing animals ok?
yes 5 20.00%
no 12 48.00%
maybe 8 32.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-25-2014, 03:15 PM   #41 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR. View Post
So did you vote yes or was it Booth? LOL
I voted "maybe". If no animal is being hurt and there's no chance of an STD, then by all means, knock yourself out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 03:19 PM   #42 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,455
Default

You can't apply your logic reasoning to morality. People draw their own lines about what is moral and not. It isn't a case of all one way or nothing like the OP tries to suggest that it should be. Shades of grey occur.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 03:26 PM   #43 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
You can't apply your logic reasoning to morality. People draw their own lines about what is moral and not. It isn't a case of all one way or nothing like the OP tries to suggest that it should be. Shades of grey occur.
You can try by actually attempting to use logic rather than just knee-jerk emotional reactions. If nothing is being hurt then what is the problem? If it can be proved that ****ing a dog or a horse isn't going to emotionally traumatize it, or that it can't contract an STD, then what is the point of arbitrarily drawing lines in your "shades of grey"?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 03:30 PM   #44 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,455
Default

The lines that get drawn vary from person to person. It doesn't matter if those conditions are proven to be harmless. It will still be viewed as wrong in their eyes while allowing for other practices to be perfectly fine.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 03:44 PM   #45 (permalink)
Neo-Maxi-Zoom-Dweebie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You can try by actually attempting to use logic rather than just knee-jerk emotional reactions. If nothing is being hurt then what is the problem? If it can be proved that ****ing a dog or a horse isn't going to emotionally traumatize it, or that it can't contract an STD, then what is the point of arbitrarily drawing lines in your "shades of grey"?
Why wouldn't they be able to contract std's? They contract anything from aids to leukemia.
__________________
" I slashed and burned thru my 15 minutes of fame."
FRED HALE SR. is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 04:27 PM   #46 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
The lines that get drawn vary from person to person. It doesn't matter if those conditions are proven to be harmless. It will still be viewed as wrong in their eyes while allowing for other practices to be perfectly fine.
So... if no one is being harmed then it's still wrong? That is the definition of irrational. You're defending a position with nonsense because you don't want to admit that you have no position. You can use your same non-argument to defend homophobia: no one is being hurt, but some people think it's gross. So, I guess it makes sense for those people to call it wrong. Or at least you'll defend their position if nothing else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR. View Post
Why wouldn't they be able to contract std's? They contract anything from aids to leukemia.
Google and Wikipedia strike again. Apparently you can't get or transmit STDs from/to animals. It mentions infections or other kinds of diseases, but it only mentioned animals giving them to humans. I'd assume the opposite would be true, but it didn't mention it. And even if you can give an animal a disease, that doesn't address my basic point. If there is no harm, is there a foul?

Zoophilia and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 04:31 PM   #47 (permalink)
A.B.N.
 
djchameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NY baby
Posts: 11,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
So... if no one is being harmed then it's still wrong? That is the definition of irrational. You're defending a position with nonsense because you don't want to admit that you have no position. You can use your same non-argument to defend homophobia: no one is being hurt, but some people think it's gross. So, I guess it makes sense for those people to call it wrong. Or at least you'll defend their position if nothing else.
You trying to apply logic to a morality scale is just as irrational.
__________________
Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxyRollah View Post
IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle View Post
The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You're a terrible dictionary.
djchameleon is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 07:10 PM   #48 (permalink)
GuD
Dude... What?
 
GuD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
You own your dog without her consent. You give her medical care, and possibly invasive procedures that may endanger her life, without her consent. You choose what food she eats. How much she eats. When she goes to the bathroom. Just about every part of your dog's existence is decided without her consent. No matter how benevolent, if you treated a human in the same way you would be a monster. And yet only in the case of sex do you apply human ethics?
Dogs are pack animals. She might not consent the way a person would but when I had to leave her with my mom for a week she raised hell about it. When I come home, she's happy to see me and all she wants to do is hang out. She's visibly miserable without me. Domesticated animals are different from people, they will die in the wild. They are dependent on their caretakers to take care for them. The process of domestication is, granted, unnatural. But what's far too developed to turn back from now results in animals who need people. Not to mention, many people who need animals. Not for their meat. It's not just sex, if you read the rest of my post it's pretty clear where I stand on animal rights.
__________________
I spit bullets in my feet
Every time I speak
So I write instead
And still people want me dead
~msc
GuD is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 07:46 PM   #49 (permalink)
Fck Ths Thngs
 
DwnWthVwls's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,261
Default

I think you missed the point Bat is making in that people still pick and choose with no logical way of justifying it. Like DJ said you can't apply logical reasoning to it because not all people think logically about everything. No matter how much you reason with someone if it comes to an issue of morality/philosophy/ethics, there is nothing you can say to change the mind of a firm believer. Emotions are stupid/hypocritical when it comes to decision making but most of us do it at some level. The one's who don't are labeled sociopaths.

Bottom line is people use morality/emotion instead of logical reasoning to justify their "no" answer in this debate. The same people saying "no" have no problem with using animals for certain things they deem okay and are morally against things they have no use for. Why don't you just admit it instead of trying to argue that it's logical?

Also, the only animal I can think of in that category is dogs. Cats, livestock, rodents, reptiles, etc are all perfectly suited for surviving in the wild without us, given the appropriate environment. We bred the survival traits out of dogs to make them subservient. How do you justify that as an animal lover? It was bred to love you so it's okay? So by your logic, if we start breeding animals to f*ck us that's okay too. We need them because we have made ourselves "need" them not because we actually do.
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Quote:
Originally Posted by elphenor View Post
I'd vote for Trump
DwnWthVwls is offline  
Old 08-25-2014, 08:33 PM   #50 (permalink)
GuD
Dude... What?
 
GuD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,322
Default

Ah, I wasn't using logic. For the most part my responses have been entirely moral-based.

OP asked a moral question. Any answers a person would have is basically moral bartering. Even Bat's answers are.
__________________
I spit bullets in my feet
Every time I speak
So I write instead
And still people want me dead
~msc
GuD is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.