• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Bestiality in Australia (1 Viewer)

dance2urownbeat

Ridiculously Good Looking
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
443
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
"Zoosexuality is 'profoundly disturbed behaviour.'"

that's all there is to it. sure this thread got to 12 pages. there should be no discussion. its completely wrong!
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
dance2urownbeat said:
"Zoosexuality is 'profoundly disturbed behaviour.'"

that's all there is to it. sure this thread got to 12 pages. there should be no discussion. its completely wrong!
Why is it wrong?

The WHO classified homosexuality as a mental illness as recently as 1992.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Love: Death
What's the diff,
really
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
zimmerman8k said:
See I'm willing to grant that they probably don't like it in most cases.

But we take what we want from the earth for our own advantage in every facet of our life. Maybe that's wrong. But bestiality is not some exceptional case.
Yeah certainly that's another limit to the argument. I've tried not to focus on that argument because a) People can get out of it too easy by claiming 'well I love animals' and b) It seems to set the discussion up for people to begin nihilistic arguments, which I might even ultimately hold, but tbh can be quite annoying to read when people don't have any level of sophistocation about the topic they're discussing.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
a) Okay, I don't see how saying "I love animals" is good enough to get out of it easily. It's an extremely weak and in many cases hypocritical argument.
What do you mean? I say "I find anything which harms animals to be completely abhorrent and thus would prefer legislation to limit the harm done to these animals whether their harm is at the hands of a farming corporation or a lonely man who needs to find a girlfriend." I don't think you're being a hypocrite if you benefit from the painful deaths of animals or whatever, only if when the time came to legislating against such abuses you would not support it. For instance I might feel government intervention is needed to prevent global warming but I do not feel I am then a hypocrite if I do not participate in earth hour and continue to drive a gas guzzling car. I'm not for other people doing these things out of the kindness of their hearts, I think for the most part that's folly, what I'm for is the government enforcing such things so that real change is forced upon all of us.

b) I don't see why you need to introduce nihilism to the argument. It is more simply that it is appropriate to subordinate the rights of animals to those of humans.
So if I want should I be allowed to set my pet dog on fire just so I can laugh gleefully while it burns?
 
Last edited:

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
NTB: Why does your argument against it rest on pain? There are clearly examples where the animal does consent
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
zimmerman8k said:
The point is they are trying to impose their personal moral beliefs on others.
Well obviously we do like to impose our beliefs on others, I mean it appears necessary to me that if two people exist in some way this will happen. I'm guessing the main examples you would be against would be where someone is trying to stop someone from doing something which harms no one. Well, it harms no one necessarily to allow people to exhume the bodies of the dead and have their way with them but tbqh I'm not going to allow that to happen.

My entire purpose in raising this discussion is more to show how unreasonable our morals can often time be.

Iron said:
NTB: Why does your argument against it rest on pain? There are clearly examples where the animal does consent
Argument against what? I don't think I've provided an argument against allowing people to perform bestiality on their pets where it hurts neither the pet nor owner. My point is more that if such acts were to necessarily cause pain then I can see an morally consistent argument against them that a lot of people could make.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I don't find either acceptable but I have no logical reasoning to. Let's see if I can find something which isn't necessarily logically justifiable (though beastiality etc I do think can be justified as wrong, you just have to suppose things which aren't themselves justified.... but then again we do the same when we suppose the right to life).

What about having sex with someone who is in a vegetative state and will not get out?

What about taking photos of little kids naked and putting them up on porn websites without actually ever touching the kid?

What about killing someone who never knows what hits them?
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I would make a necrophilia thread, but i think the beastiality position is alot easier to justify.

I dont really get the "it hurts the animals" argument. It doesnt always hurt the animals, and half the time they would love it anyway. Besides, since when have humans been concerned with the pain we cause animals? we harvest many different species for their flesh, isnt that a lot more harm then a bit of molestation?
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Miles Edgeworth said:
Either bestiality is harmful, or it is not.
What harm comes from killing someone without them feeling pain? There's more to these things than just pain.
 

HNAKXR

Wooooooo...OOOoOOOOoOOoP!
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
296
Location
safe
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Enteebee said:
Yeah certainly that's another limit to the argument. I've tried not to focus on that argument because a) People can get out of it too easy by claiming 'well I love animals' and b) It seems to set the discussion up for people to begin nihilistic arguments, which I might even ultimately hold, but tbh can be quite annoying to read when people don't have any level of sophistocation about the topic they're discussing.
that ship has long set sail.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
zimmerman8k said:
It's a huge oversimplification to limit the issue to harm, which you seem to be conflating with suffering anyway.

We have laws to prevent people killing each other because we want to minimize our odds of being killed. Certainly we may not feel it if we are just killed instantly. But we don't want it to happen, and in a society where such murders are prevalent we will constantly be more fearful, which is an undesirable feeling and a form of suffering.

No such issues exist with zoophilia or necrophilia.
But why don't we want to be killed painlessly? Why would we be fearful? The point seems to be that we value our lives and thus do not want them to be taken away. By that same token could we not value/respect the dead or value sex as something to only be between two humans? Someone may be fearful of their dead body being used in that way, are they wrong to be fearful? Why? You're right imo that no harm comes to them but then again the only harm you identified for being killed instantly was the fear its self, that seems although it could apply here. I see no way to justify value judgments(1) and in the end it seems to me as long as you're being consistent no one can definitively say you're wrong, though they may disagree fervently.

1: While there is no way to justify your value judgments (other than by themselves) I do feel it is likely that all humans, having a similar evolution, history etc are likely to have common core moral values.
 
Last edited:

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Enteebee said:
1: While there is no way to justify your value judgments (other than by themselves) I do feel it is likely that all humans, having a similar evolution, history etc are likely to have common core moral values.
Empirical data would suggest that this isn't entirely the case. Also, evolutionary history won't necessarily ensure that we hold common core values unless these values are truly innate. What I've read indicates that the 'innateness' debate has not yet been resolved (See Ch 7 'Is Morality Innate?').
 

Zozaline

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
21
Location
Behind You
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Graney said:
Msny domestic animals can accomodate quite a large penis, or can easily copulate with a human female.

It can be completely painless for all parties.
haha i know this is quite a bit back, so you can discount this but... this is freaking hilarious. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. For obvious example- just because i could eventually, by some way or another, commit world annihilation doesn't mean i should.

plus the argument on proving whether animals feel pain, plenty of cases where animals have been treated badly [beaten, starved etc] leads to, in every case to the animal suffering long term psychological harm. Which means assuming that when you are raping your pet it feels pain, it is going to suffer from the experience.

"SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA (FOX Carolina News) - A Campobello teen is accused of raping one neighbor's dog and another neighbor's two little girls. Now the dog has died and charges against the teen have been upgraded.

After receiving word that the dog died possibly because of the rape. Fox Carolina called the Solicitor's office to see if now new charges would be filed against the teen. An hour later Solicitor Trey Gowdy called to say that the charges will be upgraded to the "most serious animal cruelty charges they have on the books."

The dog's owner Sylvia Jones says, "At first when it happened, I couldn't eat or sleep every morning I'm waking up thinking Princess is there but she's not.

Princess's little dog house is empty now. Sylvia Jones says she died of internal bleeding this past Sunday because of the rape. "The vet told me she had a little blood in her urine and that she was bleeding inside."

Sylvia says she and her husband would not have believed Cory Williamson raped Princess exactly two weeks to the day she died had they not seen it with their own eyes.

"When I got here we were laying on the deck looking at him and he had his pants down and he was doing sexual activity with the dog like a man would do to a woman."

The Jones family says Princess wouldn't eat or play anymore after the attack. "She (Princess) couldn't even sit down, her bottom was swollen sore."

Sylvia says she knows Princess was just a dog, but she wants people to know that Princess was also a part of her family. A family that now has been forever changed. "She looked so pitiful. It's sad, there was nothing I could do for her."

Neighbors worry that if Williamson is accused of raping a dog and molesting two girls in the same neighborhood, who knows what might happen next."
 

lifeofsin

New Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
1
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
if you think this is funny your just as messed up as this guy ...
 
Last edited:

Zingy

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
87
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Sometimes the animals are up for it though. Once someone I know almost got raped by a rottweiler, they had clothes on of course.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Zozaline said:
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. For obvious example- just because i could eventually, by some way or another, commit world annihilation doesn't mean i should. ."
You can't actually commit world annihilation, whatever that means, you have no power.
World annihilation is wrong because it clearly harms and infringes the autonomy of others. Unlike bestiality.

You should do anything you feel like if it's not violating another persons freedom.

Zozaline said:
plus the argument on proving whether animals feel pain, plenty of cases where animals have been treated badly [beaten, starved etc] leads to, in every case to the animal suffering long term psychological harm. Which means assuming that when you are raping your pet it feels pain, it is going to suffer from the experience. ."
I agree, animals must be treated gently and lovingly. With patience and gentle treatmeant, a loving sexual relationship can be developed. Just like human relationships, some may be abusive and harmfull, but this doesn't mean all relationships are, and that we should prohibit all human relations.

The news article you posted shows when one guy went too far, but that doesn't mean I can't have a gentle, loving sexual relationship with the dog, which is appreciated and beneficial to both parties.
 

HNAKXR

Wooooooo...OOOoOOOOoOOoP!
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
296
Location
safe
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
there is no right or wrong.

fuck you and your Humanism.
 

jessiminica

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
94
Location
Nowra breh
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Personally, I don't think bestiality should be outlawed. Some forms of it are a ittle disturbing (actually, all forms are really) but as long as the animal isn't being hurt by it I see no problem.

The people who are comparing bestiality with pedophilia are off their tree. A child does not (unless they're imitating a pet) come up to an adult's leg/table leg etc and hump it. Many animals have a sexual instinct, whereas children do not.

Forcing an animal into it is wrong, as it is forcing a human into sex. However (and this is especially common in female human/male animal pairings), if the willing human presents themself and the willing animal has sex with them, I see no problem.

As has already been said, this would be less traumatic for an animal than being raised for being eaten. If any of you have ever seen a picture of a cage chicken, you know what I mean, and it happens to pigs, sheep and cows also.

I just say let people do what they want, as long as it's consensual.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top