Advertisement
What I'm about to write is a very sensitive topic.
I went into shock when I found this out. My main question why is this still happening today? Are there any laws to protect these animals from this? Are there any groups who are in contrary to these practices? Personally, I would consider this to be animal cruelty.
Once again, this is a sensitive topic. I will try to be as discreet as I can.
On an internet IM program, I met this good-looking woman who had this idea of being primal. She mentioned how she enjoyed being home in a natural state (nude). To my surprise, she enjoyed her K9 lifestyle. I was not certain what type of lifestyle this was until she explained it. She told me how she enjoyed being dominated by her two dogs and having sexual relations with them. At this point, I just went into shock. Her claim was that dogs are better lovers than men, that his practice was safe and fulfilling for women. She even went into some of the specifics of how this was all done. Her main concern was that this was not just sex, but a lifestyle. Needless to say, I have not been the same since.
Again, how can this be still going on? I thought this all ended centuries ago. Is this not animal cruelty? Are there any laws contrary to this behavior? By the way, this person claimed to be residing in Australia. Anyone know what their laws are on this topic?
I went into shock when I found this out. My main question why is this still happening today? Are there any laws to protect these animals from this? Are there any groups who are in contrary to these practices? Personally, I would consider this to be animal cruelty.
Once again, this is a sensitive topic. I will try to be as discreet as I can.
On an internet IM program, I met this good-looking woman who had this idea of being primal. She mentioned how she enjoyed being home in a natural state (nude). To my surprise, she enjoyed her K9 lifestyle. I was not certain what type of lifestyle this was until she explained it. She told me how she enjoyed being dominated by her two dogs and having sexual relations with them. At this point, I just went into shock. Her claim was that dogs are better lovers than men, that his practice was safe and fulfilling for women. She even went into some of the specifics of how this was all done. Her main concern was that this was not just sex, but a lifestyle. Needless to say, I have not been the same since.
Again, how can this be still going on? I thought this all ended centuries ago. Is this not animal cruelty? Are there any laws contrary to this behavior? By the way, this person claimed to be residing in Australia. Anyone know what their laws are on this topic?
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Sun, February 3, 2008 - 8:30 PMI think this is de-evolution, there should be laws against it. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 12:28 AMCompletely, thoroughly, unforgettably nauseating. Definitely cruelty in my book. Forcing an animal to act outside of its natural behavior, exist outside its natural state, to satisfy your own pleasure. Cruelty, exploitation, speciesism, need I go on? I don't know about Australia, but here there are laws about necrophilia, wouldn't bestiality rate the same? Definitely worse than sodomy and THAT is illegal in many states. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 5:05 AMI totally agree with you. After talking to this woman, I had trouble sleeping. I grew up where dogs, cats, hamsters, and goldfish were pets and friends. This was very disturbing to me. Honestly, this was THE worst IM I've had since I've been online--and that's close to 10 years now. What is this world coming to? -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 8:43 AMI doubt it is technically cruelty, because it doesn't sound like she is forcing the animals to do anything. If you don't fix a dog, he will hump anything and everything... Sick, twisted, and disgusting, yes, but cruel, probably not. My guess is she was just BSing you, and her real fetish is making people think she is twisted.
-
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 10:07 AM"Definitely worse than sodomy and THAT is illegal in many states."
huh??? it's long past due when sodomy laws were taken off the books and citizens of the world stopped preaching their version of sexual morality on everyone else. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 10:11 AMyes everyone is free to do whatever stupid things they like to do, and we are all free to judge it with our different opinions.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Mon, February 4, 2008 - 8:23 PMMaybe everyone is free to do every stupid thing they may like but between consenting adults. Which is why if you "want" to have sex with a child, regardless of judgement it is wrong, because that child is not an adult capable of giving his or her consent.
Likewise if you have sex with a severely retarded person (even adult) who is nto able to give his or her consent it would also be considered abuse.
(which is also true for sodomy, among two consenting adults, it should not be illegal, and the laws against sodomy had much more to do with prejudice against homosexuals who practiced sodomy, then about trying to reduce perversion)
Since a dog is an adult, and intelligent and can give his consent (as Matt said very willing to have sex with anything) because we do not SPEAK dog and can not GET his consent. It is abuse.
The dog is a different species and we can not communicate with different species, so no consent = abuse.
Unfortunately, because animals are property under the law, there isn't much you could do legally.
This is what In recommend:
If you are still in contact with this woman, nurture the relationship. Maybe ask her to send you a picture of her having sex with the dogs.
(act all pervy and into it)
then act all interested and say you want to come over and have sex with her and the dogs and need to know where she lives.
Once you find out where she lives, send the picture of her and the dogs along with her address to all the local community centers near her house, the animal shelters, churches and also to PETA and all the animal rights group in the area.
The law can't make her stop, but shame may.
Maybe she will be forced to give her dogs for adoption, will be banned from ever owning "pets" and her neighbours will definitely treat her differently. :-) -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 3:26 AMIf it sounded like I thought it was acceptable that sodomy was illegal, that was not what I meant! I agree that it is complete bullshit that should be taken off the books, and that it is about prejudice against homosexuals, not about the act being harmful and wrong. My point was that if something like sodomy is (wrongly) illegal, something like dog-rape should be illegal. Like, the focus being in the wrong place, whatever, it wasn't a very good analogy. Of course I also think pinch- and choke-collars should be illegal, so I might be a bit extreme. -
-
Unsu...
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 10:33 AMThanks for the clarification Mary, I now see your point.
as for pinch and choke colllars. You are not extreme at all. I agree with you 100%
and according to Animal Rights, those collars are unacceptable.
Once basic Animal Rights are established then everything else stems from that:
All animals (including humans) have the Right :
1.to live
2.to live free of pain
3.to sleep and to be comfortable
4.to eat and drink
5.to play and/or behave as they would naturally
6. Not to be used for a purpose that is not their own
(we aren't talking about giving hamsters and horses the right to vote, it's about the above very basic rights, there may be a few more, but those six are what I came up with at the top of my head)
And of course for humans, the human society would give us additionnal rights because we libve in thsi society. But with those additional rights come responsibilities. Whereas the basic rights do not imply any responsibility (apart from granting the same rights to others)
Non-human animals since they never agreed to join the human society only have the basic rights, but also they should have no responsibilities.
Within their own wild societies, non-human animals also have additional rights and responsibilities but those do not concern us and in fact we would not be able to know what those are.
The thing that's great about Animal Rights, is that it is much more of a catch-all, than cruelty arguments, or even veganism.
Because you establish clear rules and whenever someone questions you about whether a certain thing is right or wrong, or in following with animal rights, you can just refer them to the basic rights and ask THEM to see for themselves if it fits.
eg: What about honey, milk, eggs, silk, etc? Even if the production of these "products" met the first 5 (which it usually doesn't but many people feel that it does) it does not meet the sixth criteria.
for meat and leather it is clearer because it violates more than one and sometimes all of the rights.
For this issue with sex with a dog, it may not technically violate any rights, and even the sixth criteria could be argued, whcih is why I focussed my lasta rgument on one of consent, and of power rather than rights. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Thu, February 7, 2008 - 2:34 AMI like how you explained the rights that all animals (including humans) should have. I never really thought about it in that sense. However, I have always believed that you need to respect animals just as much a people. Consent was one thing I didn't think about at the time. This point does make perfect sense. It's just sad to see people treat animals this way. It's because of these types of behaviors, and others, that we, as a world, lose the privilege to enjoy the company of different species. In turn, we punish ourselves and our future destroying all that is around us--plants, animals, the ecosystem, and our home.
-
-
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 5:36 AManimals are very child like -
-
Unsu...
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 9:24 AManimal children are very childlike, adult animals are very adultlike.
They are adult for their species.
The issue is not how we judge animals, because most of this judgement is based on our own ignorance and our inability to understand them. (and we must be careful not to turn them into surrogate children)
The issue is that we can not communicate with them (operative word: we) and so we can not get their consent.
If we ever learned how to communicate with other species (well the first thing that would happen is that all animal industries would grind to a halt; after all who could slaughter a pig if instead of "Squueee SQuuee" , they heard "Please Please don't kill me I want to live, I want to kiss my girlfriend again, please don't kill me, I am so young, I am only 6 months old, please.")
But after that, MAYBE inter-species relationships like this one could exist, as long as both could give consent. But for now she is a total perv and that is definitely the worse kind of power abuse.
Plus then to consider would also be the issue of power. A sexual relationship is only healthy among equals.
That's what people forget about these dynamics, rape has little to do with sex and much more to do with power. The same is true for pedophilia and even to a lesser extent with innapropriate consentual relationship, like a doctor sleeping with her patient or a professor with his student.
Or for a historical reference, with a plantation owner woman sleeping with her slave. While the argument can be made that the slave wanted to have sex with her, because she OWNS him, the power dynamic is off. tehy are not equals therefore the relationship is not healthy.
So apart from the obvious consent issue, even if it appears that the dog is willing, it is still abusive because of the power structure. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 10:04 AMyour right, we cannot get there consent, but your wrong to say that we can't communicate with animals, I communicate with my dog all the time, I ask him if he's hungry, and he wags his tail and makes noises,I give him food, and he is happy, thats called communication. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Tue, February 5, 2008 - 10:18 AMokay, maybe communicate was the wrong term. What I meant was EFFECTIVELY communicate. As in speak.
And actually get their consent. Wagging a tail is not consent.
You're right I do communicate with my cats as well as my neighbours dog (that we dog sit a lot),
but generally I think they are better at communicating with me than I am with them ;-) -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Wed, February 6, 2008 - 1:37 AMI communicate with my cats in many ways-like when my boy is feeling affecctionate and presses his forehead against mine, or when I say "Are you hungry? Do you want to eat?" and they come running from whatever corner of the house they happen to be in. I find it more likely that they have learned to expect food after hearing that particular pattern and inflection in my voice than that they actually understand my words. But then, I am the only one my boy responds to when he is called by name.
Like you said, Antoine, an animal has the right "not to be used for a purpose that's not their own." I would say that sex with a human woman is a purpose not their own. Granted, it is not hard to get an intact male to hump just about anything, but sex does not serve the PURPOSE of pleasure for a dog (maybe the dog feels pleasure in the moment, but sex is not a canine recreational act, like it is for a human); the purpose is to procreate. In a healthy sexual relationship, a person seeks to bring their partner pleasure-I can't imagine a dog thinking "Oooh, gotta hit that G-spot." -
-
Unsu...
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Wed, February 6, 2008 - 7:15 AMlol.
I tend to agree with you Mary, but of course some may be able to argue because the dog appears to be willing. (and those opposed to animal rights will gladly argue with you, even if they find the dog-woman sex act obsene they will argue just to prove animal rights (and you) wrong)
so that you are prepared...
As for the sexual motivation of dogs or any other species though, there is no way to know if what you said about dogs is true. In fact many would argue with you that they have seen evidence of dogs an many other species having sex recreationally.
But that is the wonderful catch-22 that we can use to uphold animal rights. In the same way that this argument can be used to prove that the dog MAY be willing, it proves that at best it is a speculation. And the issue is not what the intentions of the dog are, but the fact that we have no way to know FOR SURE what those intentions are.
For example to use a same species analogy. The rapist may say that he was provoked by the woman, that he "felt" that she "wanted it" but because she did not give him her express consent it is rape, and his "impressions" are invalid.
and this would be the case for this woman.
my cats and I communicate very similarly than you comunicate with your cat. We do manage to communicate simply between each other. But of course no higher communication to get something as intricate as a consent. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Wed, February 6, 2008 - 10:05 AMNEWSFLASH.
Bestiality has been around since the beginning of time. Type in any animal + "sex" on Google and you'll come up with a million different porn sites dedicated to that particular fetish. Not saying it's right, or acceptable, or anything. Just saying it isn't so rare or abhorrent as some of y'all seem to imagine. Interspecial sex is not unusual at all in nature, its just that this particular instance it seems that one animal (human) has power over another's sexual choices. And who are we to say that any animal does not take pleasure in sexual relations? I think you will find scientific evidence to the contrary.
Now a human male with a sheep (insert stereotypical shepherd joke), that's a different story. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Wed, February 6, 2008 - 1:55 PMHow is human male with a sheep different than human female with dog? -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Wed, February 6, 2008 - 3:00 PMI can't believe I have to explain this, but here goes. A human female cannot tie a dog down, force it to become aroused and then mate with her. There has to be willingness on the dog's part, whether sentient or instinctual. A human male can, however, become aroused toward an animal, restrain it, and have sex with it. The best a sheep could do would be to try to run away, or possibly attack in self defense. But that's not likely with farm/domesticated livestock. The latter is much more easily defined as "cruelty to animals" than the former.
In almost all cases, it is physiologically impossible for a female to rape a male. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Wed, February 6, 2008 - 6:39 PMBullshit. A man can become erect with the absence of consent. The lack of consent defines rape, not the physiology. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Thu, February 7, 2008 - 3:51 AMWell said, Mary. Although I can't believe you'd still have to explain that. -
-
Unsu...
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Thu, February 7, 2008 - 7:10 PMHexkitten. Just because something can be found on the interenet does not make it any less objectionnable.
child pornography can also be found online, ditto for many other horrible abusive acts.
no one int his discussion ever suggested that animal abuse was rare or that bestiality was a new thing.
But everything else that i posted still stands regardless of your "newsflash"
please remember that this is an animal rights tribe and keep your opinions about what kind of animal abuse is acceptable to yourself.
thank you. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Thu, February 7, 2008 - 11:44 PMFor the record, I never said it was acceptable, nor did I say the behavior was not objectionable. I am, in fact, a very strong animal rights activist; I'm not an advocate of bestiality.
I believe the title of the original post was "Is this considered animal cruelty?". And to that end, my comment was meant to explore the question and give another perspective. I just don't believe this is a black and white issue. Clearly many of you think it is, and you're entitled to your viewpoint. Cruelty? Doubt it. Abuse? Hard to prove. Bizarre, perverse, offensive? Most definitely. But I can't really get on board for anything more than that. I'm sorry if you feel that's somehow egregious to the cause of animal rights. Antoine, I find your suggestion (as I've quoted below) to be pretty disturbing. So, its okay to judge people in malice and suggest that by manipulating, humiliating and publicly ruining them that you'll somehow right the wrong you perceive them to be guilty of? Sounds like tactics used in the Inquisition. To me, that is far more objectionable than some weirdo's purported "canine lifestyle".
<<If you are still in contact with this woman, nurture the relationship. Maybe ask her to send you a picture of her having sex with the dogs.
(act all pervy and into it)
then act all interested and say you want to come over and have sex with her and the dogs and need to know where she lives.
Once you find out where she lives, send the picture of her and the dogs along with her address to all the local community centers near her house, the animal shelters, churches and also to PETA and all the animal rights group in the area. >>
-
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Thu, February 7, 2008 - 11:52 PMI would be interested to know where evidence of "interspecial sex" exists, beyond human bestiality. I'm a bit doubtful that it can be found from reliable sources. -
-
Unsu...
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 5:38 AMsee Mary?
what I mentionned below about non-animal rights people using all manner of techniques to justify that to have sex with a dog is in fact NOT a violation of the dog's basic rights, and that they will do this at any cost even if they themsleves find the practice of having sex with a dog to be disgusting, is proved in Hexkitten's response.
She claims to be an animal rights (rights mind you not welfare) activist and yet she still does not consider that a woman having sex with her dog is either abusive to the dog or even a violation of the dog's rights.
This is why it is important to be prepared when we discuss this topic with non-animal rights activists, because they will react exactly like hexkitten.
I think it is important for us to realize that while certain things about common decency may be obvious to us,it is not necessarilly to others.
The point that you just brought up Mary is a valid one. Apart from humans violating innocent animals, do we have any precedent to prove that there ever has been consent on behalf of the non-human?
The argument of "it has been done for a long time" does not in any way prove its validity or its morality.
In fact the whole points of animal RIGHTS (rights hexkitten, rights!) is to go against a lot of things that "have been done for a long time" and to put forth the proposition that just because it has been done does not make it right. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 10:35 AMen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality
Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. Researchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species, sexual arousal from objects or places, sex apparently via duress or coercion, copulation with dead animals, homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual sexual behaviour, and situational sexual behaviour and a range of other practices among animals other than humans. Related studies have noted diversity in sexed bodies and gendered behaviour, such as intersex and transgender animals.
The study of animal sexuality (and primate sexuality especially) is a rapidly developing field. It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of species performed sexual acts other than for procreation, and that animals' sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to the "right" stimulation (sight, scent). Current understanding is that many species that were formerly believed monogamous have now been proven to be promiscuous or opportunistic in nature; a wide range of species appear both to masturbate and to use objects as tools to help them do so; in many species animals try to give and get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim; and homosexual behavior has now been observed among 1,500 species and in 500 of those it is well documented.[1]
And in response to Antoine, I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth or publicly declaring me unfit to the cause of animal rights. Stick to your own morality, and don't pass judgment on other's because they don't fully agree with you. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 2:23 PMhexkitten, I have had run ins before with Antoine.
Many of his arguments are flawed and full of self-created myths. So no need to argue with him, he's an extremist, and it is well documented that extremists of any cause do more damage than good.
Of course I think it is sad he does more damage than good for animal rights. Why? Because he drives people away with insults, unless they goose-step exactly as he thinks they should.
Nobody wants to put up with that type of person. So don't reply to him.
Stay on topic with the original poster of this thread.
By the way, I think you're right on, animals do enjoy sex. I have had dogs try to hump my (or my daughters) leg, and it feels almost cruel to stop them. I have observed that they obvious would want to do more. The woman in question possibly is simply allowing her dog to go further - further than most people would want.
I do not believe the dogs rights are violated, unless she is forcing the act, which by Gilbert saying "being dominated by her dogs" implies she is not forcing them, she is allowing them to do what they want to do.
Gilbert, if you are uncomfortable with her doing this, then finish the relationship. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 3:17 PM"Stay on topic with the original poster of this thread."
So why didn't you practice what you preach and reply to her in a private message? Is it becasue you wanted to insult Antoine and at the same time say it would be wrong for him to defend himself?
Antoine isn't the only one you've had a run in with, Brytee. You've had them with several of us and seem only to show up to do that. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 3:28 PM>> Antoine isn't the only one you've had a run in with, Brytee. You've had them with several of us and seem only to show up to do that.
Yes... I don't rush in...
BUT I do voice an opinion when it's apparent that someone starts insulting someone who has a valid point of view.
The "Ad Hominem" argument is no good argument, yet I see it done all too often, and Antoine is a prime example of often doing this.
Just because some people (ie those I have "run-ins" with) who have changed topics to start attacking someone with a different opinion (instead of conversing about the issue), then obviously it's open game to attack them back. In this case: Antoine attacked HexKitten.
I'm happy to dish back what they give. And I'm called the troll because I'm happy to turn the tables, and can do it well.
Look... If you don't like it being done back to you, then don't do it to someone else in the first place. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 3:33 PM"The "Ad Hominem" argument is no good argument, yet I see it done all too often, and Antoine is a prime example of often doing this. "
So, you seek to illustrate that it's invalid by doing it yourself? Interesting tack. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 4:43 PMI notice you've diverted the discussion away from my observations of dogs.
Maybe because you agree with me (and HexKitten) but you don't want Antoine to be the one who clearly is lacking knowledge in this matter?
-
-
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 3:30 PMMdJGutie>> So why didn't you practice what you preach and reply to her in a private message?
a) I thought Gilbert was male?
b) I thought the posting expected a reply in this thread?
c) I didn't see me preaching about using private messaging to reply. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 3:37 PMBrytee, did you think Hexkitten was a male? Because that's the little rant I was refering to. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 4:41 PM>> did you think Hexkitten was a male? Because that's the little rant I was refering to.
I'm not sure why you want off topic about HexKitten, I believe you thought Gilbert was female!
>> >> "The "Ad Hominem" argument is no good argument, yet I see it done all too often, and Antoine is a prime example of often doing this. "
>> So, you seek to illustrate that it's invalid by doing it yourself? Interesting tack.
I notice you avoid my question: So do you think it's ok when Antoine uses it? -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 6:27 PMWow! Am I male or female? That is a first on the net. To settle this question: yes, I am male. My picture is me though I should adjust it for a clearer look. I do like cats, dogs, goldfish, hamsters, and birds (no, I'm not excluding any other animals; I'm just naming what I have had contact with). And I really do care about animals. Any other questions?
-
-
-
-
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 6:21 PMI've actually stopped talking to this woman. Somethings are just a little too wild for me on the net--and that happens to be one of them.
-
-
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 2:07 PMAntoine, please remember that this is an animal rights tribe and keep your opinions about what kind of animal abuse is acceptable to yourself. -
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 2:13 PMSpeaking of trolls... -
-
footnote
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 4:53 PMWe're all peers here.
No one joined this tribe to somehow subjugate the topic of animal rights. Everyone here feels strongly, but not everyone is going to agree on everything all the time. It's not helpful to get emotionally charged and aggressive because someone expresses a differing opinion. There's no need to judge, insult or condemn. It doesn't help the cause; it only serves to divide and dispel the credibility of the movement.
That being said, if you start an attack on the open forum, then you have to expect to be treated in kind.
-
-
Re: footnote
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 7:16 PMSorry Hexkitten, but attacks are the ONLY reason Brytee ever posts to these forums. He started the same kind of shit over on the PETA tribe a while back. He's a troll. -
-
Ad Hominem again...
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 8:08 PMActually (once again) we see people (like MdJGutie) complain about people who do not like the aggressive nature of people like Antoine, and when they point out the flaws in their arguments, they just get more and more aggressive, and refuse to talk about the topic, but attack the person (eg calling me a troll - which is obviously incorrect).
Notice:
• MdJGutie couldn't answer my question about whether he thought it was appropriate Antoine was attacking you.
• MdJGutie nor Antoine have discussed my viewpoints of the topic, but have just chosen an Ad Hominem approach.
Troll indeed - you need to look up the definition! -
-
Re: Ad Hominem again...
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 8:18 PMThere are other examples in PETA tribe of nobody being able to discuss a topic intellectually, without flinging insults (ie at me), eg: peta.tribe.net/thread/bcc...6a1fc2574e8
and somehow I'm the troll? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Ad Hominem again...
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 8:51 PMIt might be safer that you do not have contact with this person Gilbert because it is just horribly bad energy that you do not need. I was just suggesting an effective method to expose her should you choose to continue your contact with her.
(and for the record it was obvious to me that you are male ;-)
Hexkitten. It is not about arguing for no reason. I get passionate because you are using the argument that animals enjoy sex ( and of course they do) to justify obvious animal abuse. This is an animal rights tribe not an animal welfare tribe.
and you see Mary, this is why I said that discussing animal rights with these kinds of people may lead to this. I am sure that Hexkitten feels that to have sex with a dog is not a good thing, she would not do it herself. Yet she takes the time to defend it. And to state that it is not a violation of the dog's rights because "dogs enjoy sex"
and she does not feel that she is necessarilly defending having sex with dogs, but wishes to make her point, but why make this point? unless she feels strongly about having sex with dogs?
Because to accept animal rights makes many people feel insecure and frightened, and so they go against it at all cost. Animal welfare makes them feel superior.
which is why I think in discussions like this we must not base ourselves on animal rights per se, but on issues of consent (and how consent can not be given (because we don't speak dog! :-)
and to extend the example in an arena that has consent. to say that a dog being USED in a sexual act without his consent is not being abused BECAUSE dogs enjoy sex, would be the same as saying that a woman being used against her will (without her consent) in a sexual act (like rape for example) is not being abused BECAUSE it has been proven that she has enkyed sex before.
Do you see how dangerous an argument that is?
In this an animal rights tribe we must remember that the issue is not the welfare of the dog and whether he has been mistreated or not or physically hurt. The issue is HIS RIGHTS.
Since the dog is the woman's property than can never be free consent and above that since the dog does not speak human and the woman does not speak dog there can never be consent at all.
(I personally believe that it is also a violation of his rights (that I listed below) specifically the one of being used, but as you can clearly see, people are very quick to argue that, not necessarilly because they want to have sex with dogs or they feel that the "right" (sic) to have sex with dogs should be defended but just because they do not want to concede animal rights and will argue to disprove it...yes even here in an animal rights tribe. -
-
-
Re: Ad Hominem again...
Sat, February 9, 2008 - 2:38 AM"to say that a dog being used in a sex act without his consent is not being abused because dogs enjoy sex would be the same as saying that a woman being used against her will (without her consent) in a sexual act (like rape for example) is not being abused because it has been proven that she has enjoyed sex before"
Exactly. If arousal does not equal consent for a woman, it should not for a man, and it should not for a dog. That was a legal battle for women that was long fought and hard won. It's the whole "she asked for because she flirted with me" argument again, just rewritten to "the dog wanted it because he humped my leg."
Just because something's been around forever does not make it acceptable. Pedophilia has been around forever, too.
Legal consent requires that both parties have a full understanding of the act, the risks and the consequences. THERE IS NO CONSENT if one participant speaks human and one participant speaks "dog" ;) No consent = dog-rape. All beings, human or non-, have the right to freely engage in CONSENSUAL sexual acts. By engaging in non-consensual sex with a dog, she is violating his rights.
I would find it hard to believe that this woman got her dog to put his equipment exactly where she wanted it without some form of coercion. I doubt she got spread-eagle on the floor and said: "Rover, give it to me" and got what she wanted. -
-
Re: Ad Hominem again...
Sat, February 9, 2008 - 11:15 AM"Legal consent requires that both parties have a full understanding of the act, the risks and the consequences"
Exactly. This is the same reason that having sex with a "consenting" twelve year old boy (or girl) is rape. The fact that someone is physically capable of the act does not mean they understands it. -
-
Legality stance
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 1:06 AM>> "This is the same reason that having sex with a "consenting" twelve year old boy (or girl) is rape. The fact that someone is physically capable of the act does not mean they understands it."
This assumes there are laws that say sex with a 12 year old is non-consenting.
This maybe true in the USA and other western cultures.
But in years past (and in other cultures), this was (and is) not considered illegal and thus not rape, since that society believes that 12 year old were capable of understanding it.
As there are no laws about animal consent, this argument cannot be used. -
-
Re: Legality stance
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 1:11 AMOh... I said "As there are no laws about animal consent"... leads me onto saying:
As such I believe laws should be created to make it illegal on the grounds that our society generally believes that it is immoral.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: footnote
Fri, February 8, 2008 - 8:14 PMPS In the PETA tribe, you can see that I was trying to have a decent conversation, and Antoine just kept refusing to talk about the topic, and only would ever revert to insults to support his viewpoint. See: peta.tribe.net/thread/d22...fddf9c591ca - Antoine gets quite brutal. -
-
Re: footnote
Sat, February 9, 2008 - 10:53 PMI am responding to an earlier post on this thread. I am not sure if (non-human) animal sex is always about reproduction. I think it is never about reproduction, since they don't know that sex results in reproduction,. For non-human animals, it would then be always about pleasure. -
-
Re: footnote
Sat, February 9, 2008 - 11:09 PM"For non-human animals, it would then be always about pleasure. "
Right, and that would be a function of evolution and evolution comes through reproduction. If non-human (or human) animals did not find pleasure in it, their bloodlines wouldn't survive. The ones who found pleasure in the reproductive act would do it more often and that trait would stand a better chance of being passed on. They find pleasure in the act because of their physical structure, not because they "choose" to.
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 1:08 AM>> "For non-human animals, it would then be always about pleasure. "
Right! So the dog is choosing to have pleasure, is of an age to be able to (in dog years), and is not being forced into doing such an act.
It still turns my stomach though. -
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 2:26 AMHow do you know that non-human animals don't know that reproduction is a result of sex? You're assuming that you know the level of understanding that all animals of all species have. Simply because animals cannot communicate their understanding doen't mean they don't have it; they might or might not, we don't know. Its a bad habit humankind has of seeing itself as more evolved, intelligent and conscious than other species. -
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 9:40 AMso here's the scenario:
a male dog mounts a female human (her leg, her hip, her ass, whatever....) and begins to hump.
the dog is thinking:
a) i'm going to procreate and make a baby dog!
b) i'm going to procreate and make a baby dog-human hybrid!
c) i'm really fucking horny and want to get my rocks off!
d) i hate these humans and i'm going to rape the fuck outta this one!
e) i love this human and i want to show my affection by having sex with her!
f) i don't know what i'm doing but this sure feels good!
g) why do i do this?
h) this human smells good!
i) i wonder what's for dinner?
j) if i see that cat again i'm going to chase it!
k) ball! where's my ball?
l) bark! woof! bark bark bark! woof! wooooof!
k) insert you're own anthropomorphistic idea here.
now tell me, how are any of you going to know what that dog is thinking???? -
-
Unsu...
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 2:16 PM"now tell me, how are any of you going to know what that dog is thinking???? "
Exactly.
(and very entertainingly put too david ;-)
as for whether non-human animals know that sex leads to procreation, again david's argument and Mary's earlier reasoning stand. But I would assume that most creatures know that sex can lead to procreation...but then again there a lot of teenaged kids who are surprised when they become pregant, so it is possible that all aniamls (human or not) are not100% clear that sex leads to reproduction. lol :-)
Only note about Brytroll: Brytroll's stupidity serves only to prove my earlier point that when it comes to these finer points of animal rights we must be clear on how to defend oursleves, because everyone will argue them (even if they do not agree with the act...as I assume that Brytroll has many faults but bestiality is not one of them, but yet he is still defending bestiality and with much zeal too!) insecure, unevolved humans are threatened by animal rights, because they fear that it somehows compromises them, and they will actively defend even the most objectionnable forms of abuse if it will shut down animal rights in their mind.
These people see contradicting animal rights as some sort of higher calling. It started in the paleolithic age when we humans were competing against other species. Those of us who have evolved realize that distrusting other species and subjugating them has lead us to the mess that we are in now, and that the goal is to learn to live in harmony together, and the first step is granting other species basic rights. And instead of using them (but trying to do it nicely) to respect them and therefore NOT use them. (musical interlude: R-E-S-P-E-C-T) :-) -
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 2:56 PMI don't care if he's stupid and obnoxious. I just wish he would keep being stupid and obnoxious where ever he's been stupid and obnoxious for the past few months and stay there.
I don't think it's possible for him to actually stop being either of those things. -
-
Unsu...
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 3:55 PM"I don't think it's possible for him to actually stop being either of those things."
lol. (so true :-)
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 11:15 PM>> I don't care if he's stupid and obnoxious. I just wish he would keep being stupid and obnoxious where ever he's been stupid and obnoxious for the past few months and stay there.
It's easy, and it makes me doubt your IQ too. So let me spell it out, since you're admitting you cannot figure it out:
Stop insulting people (in this case HexKitten), and discuss the topic.
>> I don't think it's possible for him to actually stop being either of those things.
And it seems some animal rights folks think insults improve their point of view.
PS You can claim I'm stupid, but you're wrong. Maybe you're projecting?
You can think I'm obnoxious, but only to those who deserve it. -
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 11:45 PM"You can think I'm obnoxious, but only to those who deserve it. "
You ONLY show up in the animal rights tribes to be obnoxious. Aside from that, you have had NOTHING to say on the topic. You posted to the PETA tribe to advocate the eating of meat. That quickly turned into a diatribe, and when I pointed out that you were a member of NO other animal related tribes, despite the fact that you were in over a hundred other tribes, you hastily added membership to a few more.
“I think you have made your self and your intentions perfectly clear. I think you are not here to debate, but here to fight. I think you are not here because you want to learn but think the rest of us need to be taught. I think you should join more tribes on being single and trying to start relationships and ending relationships and being divorced and being a single burner and dating and interracial dating and interracial romance and being a single parent and cuddling and long distance relationships and the mythical nice girl and the mythical nice guy and hugging and long distance love and validation and the very very very very lonely and being all alone and asking a sexy person anything and asking a sexy man anything women who adore guys with accents and broken hearts and unconditional love and I wonder why you're so angry (but I think I can guess) and I wonder when you joined the animal rights tribe because you didn't belong to it when I saved your tribes list to my cached files four days ago.
Those are my thoughts on this subject.”
peta.tribe.net/thread/bcc...410b6597a4e
I saved your list of tribes because I had the feeling you’d try to hide your hypocrisy after I pointed it out and you did. I thought you were dishonest about your reasons for being on these tribes almost a year ago. You have done nothing in the interim to make me change my mind.
-
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 11:46 PM... and stop sending me personal messages. There is nothing I want to hear from you. -
-
Re: footnote
Mon, February 11, 2008 - 1:02 AM>> There is nothing I want to hear from you.
The trademark sign of an ignorant (or insecure) person.
Stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la, la-la-la, I can't hear you".
See... how immature that is? -
-
Unsu...
Re: footnote
Mon, February 11, 2008 - 5:40 AMOKAY.
ENOUGH
(I tried ignoring this turd but it doesn't work!!!)
ENOUGH!
fuck you Brytroll.
If you think that PETA is wrong and penn and teller are right (about advocating wearing leather eating meat and slaughtering animals by the billions) THEN WHAT THE FUCK are you doing on an animal rights tribe???!!!
The whole point of tribe is that you join the tribes that you agree with...IT's about community.
YOU obviously don't agree with animal rights..as the "discussions" in the PETA tribe demonstrate so kindly fuck off from this tribe as well.
and please stop harassing animal rights activists in emails, and stop using tribe to work out your emotional issues...no wonder you are divorced and so lonely as MdJGutie's last post stated, you are an asshole.
(sigh) and yes! I know! I'm the one telling you to fuck off! so in your simple little mind that makes me an asshole. Okay call me adhominem and any other word that you just learned last week and use non stop...but I belong to this tribe because I subscribe to the beliefs of this tribe and you come on here and speak against the very reason that this tribe exists...so who's the asshole?
Bottom line is that I BELIEVE in Animal Rights and work to further Animal Rights which is why I belong to this tribe. You hate animals, kill them and eat them, and agree with assholes who think that all animal rights people are idiots...so BY DEFINITION you are a TROLL
TROLL!
TROLL!
TROLL!
Damn. You see to all my tribe friends who told me that the best things to do with trolls was to ignore them and they'll go away...see?? it doesn't fucking work! because trolls are cowards and bullies...and you MUST stand up to bullies...if you ignore them they think they have won and like that STUPID energizer bunny they just keep fucking going and going and going ....
How many fucking stupid ass anti-animal rights hateful posts are we gonna put up from this asshole before we do anything?
come on people!
Brytroll please if you have even a ounce of common decency left in that sad shell of a soul of yours, consider the fact that the whole idea of tribe is to nurture COMMUNITY. I don't join the gun nut tribe, or the divorced losers tribes just to get into fights with people....why? because I am not a gun nut (in fact I completely disagree with gun nuts, in the same way (surprise!) that YOU completely disagree with animal rights) so to join that tribe would be TROLLING...and would go against the very reason that tribe is cool for everyone.
I don't join the divorced losers tribes, because I am not divorced, and actually even my divorced friends are well-adjusted and cool, and none of them are losers like you. So even if my divorced friends were to tell me "hey do you want me to join the divorced losers tribes that Brytroll belongs to so that I can tell him off?" I would say "No. Paul/John/AMY cuz you are not a LOSER so to join those tribes ONLY to tell Brytroll off, would be TROLLING."
do you get it dumbfuck?
You can say all you want about my harsh words in the PETA tribe. But the fact is I am a card carrying member of PETA. I volunteer for them and donate to them. I agree with their philosophy that no animal is ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment or any other exploitive purpose.
and this tribe is for those who agree with (or are interested in) animal RIGHTS and wish to discuss it. It does not imply agreeing with PETA and some who are aniaml rights activists disagree with PETA (their tactics, etc) but they don't disagree with them at the detriment of animal rights! And they certainly don't agree with fucking penn and teller!
IF YOU KILL ANIMALS OR HAVE ANIMALS KILLED FOR YOU YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ANIMAL RIGHTS.
do you get that simpleton?
You do not agree with animal rights and obviously are not interested in animal rights. So please leave this tribe. NOW
and for those who react at my harsh words. I am a pacifist and will always advocate non-violent resistance. But as I have said before pacifism is not passive-ism. And non-violence does not necessarilly mean always being POLITE.
We must react sometimes and we must stand up to defend the voiceless. If we do nothing animals will DIE.
and for those who say that we should blindly be nice to everyone in hopes that one day they will get animal rights...perhaps that is true for most people, but for idiots like Brytroll, the movement would be much better served by us hoping for nature to take its course and give him the massive coronary that he deserves and rid us of him forever. Hoping for Brytroll to get animal rights is a waste of hope.
I will never be violent. But I will not be polite to a Nazi, a Klan member or Brytroll. k?
(Brytroll fuck off now) -
-
Unsu...
Re: footnote
Mon, February 11, 2008 - 6:18 AMWhen my father was doing his psychiatric rotation, he noticed that many of the severely insane people would call him and the other doctor's insane. It's interesting that many times people acuse others of what they are themselves.
Similarly our resident troll, keeps calling everything that I do "ad hominem" (arguing against the person making an argument rather than arguing the argument)
it's intesresting while reading the progression of this and all other "discussions" that our troll has seen fit to link to. :-)
(please fuck off Brytroll)
-
-
-
-
Re: footnote
Mon, February 11, 2008 - 1:00 AM>> You ONLY show up in the animal rights tribes to be obnoxious. Aside from that, you have had NOTHING to say on the topic.
Then you are ignorant of what I've posted.
>> I saved your list of tribes because I had the feeling you’d try to hide your hypocrisy after I pointed it out and you did. I thought you were dishonest about your reasons for being on these tribes almost a year ago. You have done nothing in the interim to make me change my mind.
I didn't know George Orwell's 1984 (it's a book) had big sister as well as big brother.
Don't you have a life? Watching me... how sad!
Ah... now I see why, one of YOUR tribes is: hecklers
This childish level of insults is just a game to you!
Maybe your whole life is a game too, and animal rights mean little, since you don't seem to discuss the topic, and prefer to spy on people instead.
Also I thought stalkers were generally male?
If you understood people a little better, which for a moment I thought you did, but you blew that, then you'd know I joined other tribes of a similar topic since it was obvious the PETA tribe was full of immature types who ask me to start a thread (about insulin) and nobody discusses it at all, and just send insults.
How insane!
But PETA is generally known for insane extremists, and Penn & Teller were probably accurate in some of their script!
Well, if you're stalking me, then you probably saw I left that tribe, since you and a few others couldn't hold a decent conversation without resorting to insults. So maybe there were adults here. But it seems not. You (plural) still go around insulting anyone who doesn't agree with your narrowminded views.
As I asked in that personal message: Why are you so immature?
You claim (in your profile) you have a high IQ. You don't show it very well.
>> You have done nothing in the interim to make me change my mind.
No. I am not on tribe to change your mind about anything. Sorry to burst your petty ego trip.
-
-
-
-
Ad hominem yet again!
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 11:03 PMAntoine (even though you mistyped my name, as a childish gesture I'll not stoop to your immaturity),
Once again it seems part of your method to prove your point is to insult me.
I thought the concept of whether animals are being abused (or not) had no relevance to my level of intelligence, but somehow you think it does?
By your logic, if we prove I'm not stupid then bestiality is acceptable?
Do you really believe that?
I pity the animals if we actually listened to you and your illogical tripe, but luckily we know you're being immature and using the Ad Hominem approach.
A little word of advice, you look stupid by doing that.
When you said animals know sex leads to reproduction. Prove it. You cannot. And against your false belief are scientific studies that show animals cannot make the connection. The dogs in this case (since I'll bring it back on topic, unlike you seem to be able to do) are doing what comes naturally. They enjoy sex. They see an opportunity to do what they like, so they do.
Is it right?
That depends on your morality, and what society believes.
She obviously feels it's ok. People here do not.
I feel the only way to resolve this would be to create (or have denied) a law to make such activity illegal. -
-
Re: Ad hominem yet again!
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 11:19 PM"I feel the only way to resolve this would be to create (or have denied) a law to make such activity illegal. "
Just because something is legal, does not mean it's not cruelty. The two terms are not synonymous, hence the question in the OP.
As for what Antoine calls you, I think he's being kind. I think infinitely worse of you.
-
-
-
-
Re: footnote
Sun, February 10, 2008 - 9:56 AM> How do you know that non-human animals don't know that reproduction is a result of sex?
There have been many studies about animals understanding of cause and effect, and if they can perceive another's point of view.
There is significant evidence that unless it happens right then and there in front of them they will not realize things can happen, as it has been shown they have no concept of things having happened outside their zone of vision. From what I remember, even in chimpanzees who communicate either through sign-language or a board of words do not understand this.
Similarly this is true in children under the age of approximately 5.
We teach them through the aid of stories, Snow White is a good example as a younger child does not understand why Snow White would eat a poisoned apple as THEY know it poisoned, they saw the witch poison it, so therefore Snow White should know.
Also with children, they have to be taught that the act of sex eventually causes a baby to be born, a young child does not know this.
So it seems fair to say that animals do not know the act of sex causes reproduction.
> Its a bad habit humankind has of seeing itself as more evolved, intelligent and conscious than other species.
It is a bad habit of humankind to personify object and animals, project human experiences onto animals, and to see other species as having the same understanding and beliefs as human, heck... humans don't understand that other cultures have different understanding and belief systems.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: *Sensitive Topic* Is this considered animal cruelty?
Mon, February 11, 2008 - 7:07 AMAlright, children, enough has been said about this subject and about each other. Please cease posting on this thread or I'll delete the whole thing. Thanks.
