Forgot to bump and couldn't respond to the last guy.
It has been shown that euthanizing and neutering animals DOES NOT control pet population compared to responsible pet ownership.
Are you saying we should apply the same to humans if you think it works in controlling population?
feral s/fur
In fact, why would you say it's ok to ignore consent when it comes to killing and castrating dogs, but somehow it's the main issue when it comes to sex? Ridiculous.
Sasha La Fleur is a great character to start off with. First feral I was ever attracted to.
Debating you on the ethics of real life zoophilia won't get anywhere. I won't convince you it's wrong. You won't convince me it's okay.
I'd love to stay and swap 2D feral pics, but I think I'm going to go to bed.
thanks lol
But dont you see the logical fallacy there?
Animals love sex.
They dont love being castrated, force fed the same cannibal cereal their entire lives 3x a day, or being euthanized when their medical care is no longer convenient to their owner.
feet
I want snake
bump
More big kitties and/or heat?
>it's been shown population control doesn't control the population
According to what? Nothing?
Oooo thank you!
Then why are areas with more neutering in the USA way overpopulated with strays compared to richer places in europe that never neuter?
It's propaganda. Money drives the fake propaganda.
Because strays don't get neutered.
Furry server
Discord._gg/umx4vKy
Any feral big kitties would be nice, I lost mine to a drive failure recently... I'll keep posting anthro tho!
robocopy Y:\ Z:\ /e /purge /xd "System Volume Information" "$RECYCLE.BIN" /r:1 /w:10 /np /log:Y:\Log\log.txt /tee
what
What is that?
Lurkin for them sweet pussy's pussies
command prompt function robocopy, will duplicate one drive to another, people only lose data in the modern world through their own stupidity.
Ah. Thank you! I know I should have backups, but I keep forgetting to make some...
but what if u wanted to lose the data to start fresh?
you can set it to individual folders too, just change the path.
open cmd and type
robocopy /?
for how to use it. it will copy files marked as system files too though, which is why ive excluded recycle bin and volume info. you wont need those if youre just copying a folder not the whole drive.
Then you haven't lost it have you, you've deleted it.
Awesome! Thank you!
If you fucked a feline anthro "doggie style", would it then be called "kitty style"?
no
yea lol
do u wanna psot anthro?
Well, I'm posting anthro right now, aren't I? Or is there something you'd rather I post?
I'm also down with feral, so long as it's feline, but I don't have any to post...
well might as well, since my feral is repeats.
So, more anthro then?
Why is there another bestiality argument happening? What rampant fire is consuming the degenerates this time?
In any case, OP hasn't shown that euthanizing
>euthanizing
>this kills the animal
and neutering
>neutering
>nonexistent fertility
fails to control pet population. Not that they need to, because this is bait. You would think dead and/or sterile animals wouldn't be breeding.
Unless that was an oversight, because lo and behold, more talk of castration.
This guy came in thick and fast huh.
God I want some pussy right now...
siure
Why is consent important with sex but not when it causes harm or death to an animal?
See, I've never gotten that either. It's fine to rob an animal of it's freedom and make it a pet, it's fine to outright kill it, ending it's life, for food. But to fuck it? OOOHHH NOOOO THAT'S GOING TOO FAR MAN! Where was all this talk/concern of animal rights, wellbeing and consent in ANY other area of human/animal interaction? Not to mention, giving someone an orgasm is hardly worse than enslaving or killing them...
Yeah.. people are stupid.
There are a number of reasons. A particular reason, is because you're still trying to make this a moral argument. You can't decry all of that, but insist that this one thing you want is similarly a-okay. You have few choices with regards to remedying the issues as they present themselves.
As an example. It's fine to kill them, neuter them, eat them. But it's being argued that it's not fine to fuck them. If the inverse of that, is that it's okay to fuck them, but not okay to eat them, or neuter them, or kill them... then what was all that noise about making them pets?
The big takeaways were already discussed at some point, which is probably why
>make it a pet
is being mentioned. Surely someone remembers what was said before. "Enslaving or killing them". Yes, you remember just fine, you degenerate. So, consider this.
They are your slaves. Does that not already invalidate your moral high ground? I think it does. It's then that you have to admit that
>raping
them is not, as you put it, fine. And if you'll notice, the majority of people get on with killing and eating animals, as well as making them pets, so you surely have to realize that many people have already dealt with these issues. Yes, we eat meat. That's just what happens.
All this hand-wringing over why raping your dog is fine... just admit that it's all you're doing, raping your dog. Because there's something to be said about cruel and unusual punishment, and given the disparity in power, nothing is more cruel and unusual than the human being taking advantage of the lowly slave with their psychological dominance, while dressing it up as "love". There is nothing necessary in your predisposition to want to rape the animal. It is a want. A lust.
I'd rather not sit down and have this go-around again with another lot of zoophiles, I don't. It's the same old tired arguments, objections, and rationale. Formatting and distilling the full scale of the argument, of which most individuals would acknowledge on some common-sense level, on top of having to go around and around and around the drain that all the rationalizing opens up is beyond tedium. I have to gauge exactly where to start, what to omit, and what to expand on. And again, a lot of this should be on the bleeding edge of common sense and intuition, but for some awful reason, it's absent. Seriously, what is with the castration obsession? Why is that always an objection? When does that ever work? Why do zoophiles always go to the animal's reproductive organs?
It's all so tiresome. You dirty animals.
>There are a number of reasons. A particular reason, is because you're still trying to make this a moral argument. You can't decry all of that, but insist that this one thing you want is similarly a-okay. You have few choices with regards to remedying the issues as they present themselves.
wat
You are literally advocating killing them, forcing cannibalism, and castration a month or two after birth.
You make no sense, like the average normie. Keep feeding your castrated eunuch slave that cannibal crunch cereal 3x a day for life. Then pretend you "love" them when they die looking like a living cyst, covered in tumors.
Right, but our love is false. Right.
Normies are stupid man.
My bitches don't have a single skin tag, tumor, blood sad in their ear, washed out eye, or arthritis/skin issues. It's the food. Normies don't love their pets for real. But somehow, we are the false ones. That's really offensive.
>blood sad
sorry meant blood sac
Yes. Kill them, eat them, stick them in a stew. What else? And of course, another castration tidbit. Yes, castrate them.
There are reasons for these things. Resources, population control, behavior modification, in that order, however gross a simplification.
Your love isn't the same kind of love you sell it as. It's been demonstrated countless times. Countless times. You've said nothing of substance, to boot.
What am I then to conclude? Presumably, guilt, and an inability to confront that which does not comfort your ideals and worldview. Leaves little to the imagination, as it has for over 10 years and through countless zoophiles.
Huh, well some stray found my outside dog, and a few months later, the mother had 8 puppies. Now we have 10 dogs we have to give awya, and there is no way we are going to afford another litter.
No, the reason is mostly profit you moron. Mass unnecessary animal suffering is ok if it's for profit?
But sex is bad. Are you retarded
Being the lowest common denominator doesn't mean that others should be punished for it. Europeans who respect and house their dogs indoors don't have this problem. But strays are everywhere in the south, russia, and china. Places full of retards who don't respect animals.
Your dog is supposed to live in the house, not outside.
If you are arguing that removing a bull's testicles is solely for profit, you may have that very same bull's testicles lodged inside of your cranium. Given the subject matter, that would be appropriate.
You are already making strawmen. You've shown few attempts to treat the dialogue with the kind of sincerity or credibility that one should give if they intend to truly seek a resolution... and since that's a common thread with the majority of people across the board, it's exactly why I'm left to believe that you have no problems with raping your pets, whose status and place in the household have been argued with detail before.
Well its for meat and it makes the animal more docile so I guess it is for profit technically.
This dog is a bit big, and has to live outside for he just destroys everything inside. 3 lamps, tons of vases. He thinks he's small, but he a big boy.
> outside dog
don't do this you fucking monster
dogs are pack animals and suffer when they are left unsupervised outside, if your family thinks a dog is too dirty to keep inside the house then you shouldn't fucking have it in the first place
your family sucks
It ain't that, he lives on a ranch. He has his own little house too with proper shading and cooling. Also he loves to just be running around the 50 acres we have and herding the livestock. He seems more happy outside than in. Also, we can afford to have any more puppies from him or the mother. If we did, they would eventually have to be given to a shelter, and over there, they usually euthanize them. I don't want them to go to the rural areas because they make packs of feral dogs that kill livestock or just become roadkill. I just don't want to see dead puppy carcasses on the road anymore.
Can't afford
Like every week I see dead dogs because people out in the rural areas don't care about them. They just let them lose, and we see the bodies line the side sof the roads with blood tire treads. Plus, most of them that do live end up starving to death because no one finds them to take care of them. So you will find abandoned places with a litter of dead puppy bodies or skeletons.
why the fuck do people like this get dogs in the first place?
Train the fucking dog.
Yeah actual prison-style torture techniques used on actual prisoners is "normal". But sex is abuse. Fuck off with that shit.
Am I a monster for wanting to not see any more dead puppies or starving animals where I live?
Yeah because as I said, they are the lowest common denominator. These people do not treat animals well, and normalize actual torture.
My dogs live better than most humans on earth.
I wish all dogs could be given a home like that, but it is rarely the case in rural areas.
Then why get a dog in the first place...?
We didn't get him, we found him starving, and he would die if we didn't take him in. Same with the puppies and the mother. They would all be dead.
When you have to say that it's
>technically
that way, odds are it isn't truly that way. You'd have to frame the thing in a certain light, at a certain angle, for it to appear that way.
Some bulls get castrated so they can become profitable. We call them steers. We eat steers eventually. But their profitability comes from the fact that they're not trying to gore everything they see, on top of impregnating heifers that can't survive the pregnancy. You can't just herd all the bulls you want. And if there's no snip, there's less dollar to be made. If you want unnecessary mass suffering, imagine not preventing a whole lot of goring, birthing complications, trauma, and more.
Genuinely, it's not that castration is mass unnecessary suffering, and it's not that mass unnecessary suffering is okay if it's for profit. That doesn't follow, at least not here. Castrating a bull equals meat and income. They get to live for 18 to 24 months, and then are culled. There's no setup, no illusion there. That is their purpose. And it's not done with rusty scissors and closet-sized electric fences. It's honest about the reality that is castrating a bull.
>why the fuck do
To fuck the dog, probably.
>prison-style torture techniques
You're going to have to make up your mind at some point. Maybe not now, maybe not later, but at some point.
You certain sound like you have experience with cattle. Do you or did you used to live on a ranch? We have horses.
Right so... profit. Which is fine I guess. They're a food animal. But it's still profit.
Why take a dog in if you aren't going to give them a decent life? Train the dog to live indoors. It's not hard.
We didn't ask for the big dog, but we have him and love him. He knows basic training, but he is really rowdy by nature, and gets easily excited. You can't really train that without spending months on him. We simply do not have that time, but we keep him fed and healthy, with the vet checking often. He seems happy to roam around and herd the horses. Plus, he seems to not really like to go inside anyways.
Yes, you can. It takes like a week or two. Good thing you have a vet, which is far more than most people bother with for their dog, outside of state and municipally required vaccinations.
It's the result of 20-somthing years' experience of discussing the merits of having sex with an animal. You get to talk to some ranchers, you eventually do your research, you eventually go to a couple ranches, and then you learn some things.
Food animals for profit. Not undue mass suffering and easy money, because it gets some people rock hard. And now that you're the one making these observations, maybe you'll see that there's a lot more to the charges you lay at the feet of the normie.
A lot more. This dog fucking thing, it's not well.
We have had him for several years, he is just naturally that excited, and we don't have time to force him to not. My family have jobs, and I have work and uni. Every dog is different, so yours may take little time to settle down, but he hasn't shown a sign of being any less rowdy. All we want now is for him to live a nice, free life around the ranch. He can run off if he wants, but he always comes back to his little house and us every night.
Happy to hear that you do actually research about it, and work towards a better understanding, unlike most people on this website.
You have my respect.
Actual*
I think your arguments are just logically retarded. Pretty sure an animal would rather live with a zoo than a rancher, if given the choice somehow.
At least you don't give him to a high-kill prison like most normies do when they don't want to deal with an unruly dog.
... that's not the argument, that's probably why it seems very easy for you to make. I don't recall suggesting that a bull would rather become a steer and then be culled so I could eat it.
No, I don't think that was ever communicated. And mind you, the decision is made for them. No bull will ever make that choice for themselves. They might happen to behave themselves into a position where they don't get snipped, and remain breeders, but you clearly understand and are communicating the fact that, for some reason, the bull being given the choice is a conditional event that needs to be artificially constructed.
Now I don't think the bull is ever going to sign a legal document.
Animals are just people with a different language. To a zoo, we very much live in ancient rome, egypt, or sumer. People are bought and sold, killed at the whim of their masters, and castrated as eunuchs if their owners see fit. The only difference is we eat them.
To a zoo, ancient rome is very much alive. I dont think you could comprehend that as a normie. To you, they're just furniture made of meat, as slaves were to ancient romans.
I acknowledge some interspecies slaves should be used as meat, at least until we can create literal meat farms. It's nature and we need meat. But it's still bizarre to see people defend mass murder, castration, cannibalism, experimentation, slavery, and psychological as well as physical torture for convenience sake to the owner, but somehow still condemn sex. All with a straight face. Bizarre.
We need more epona
rare
>Animals are just people with a different language
Linguists would disagree with you, biologists would disagree with you, neurologists would disagree with you, archeologists would disagree with you...
>ancient rome
No, no! Don't do that. Every time... this slave allegory and Ancient Rome. Why? You're glossing over the clear disparity between animal and man by invoking the concept of slavery and reducing the enslaved to "slave" alone. It's not the same, and you already shoot yourself in the foot by continuing to reference antiquity.
We're not there anymore. None of us are Romans. None of us served under a pharaoh. This is current year. Don't dive off the slavery springboard so you can start advocating for pederasts. Surely you don't run a human trafficking ring. Right? Because while that would be terrible, I have to say that it's not far removed from what happens in the darkest corners of the aforementioned fandom. Such as it is.
You cannot compare the everyday dog to the everyday man. They do not have the kind of language we have. Do you know how many languages humans have? Can you honestly say that's equivalent to the amount of languages dogs have? Dogs don't have a language like that. At all. The moment you utter a breath about body language, you already provide ammunition to relentlessly beat that sentiment like a dead horse.
But you know I've wasted my time, because you've just stated that the Empire of Rome is still alive for those who fuck their dogs. No, I can't even begin to point out the number of ironies, juxtapositions, hypocrisies... it's an information overload. Why. Why? Why would those who likely authored and curated the history of an ancient world, who might labor over it, not understand it better than one who screws the pooch? What does the Republic's actual, living existence in current year, contrary to common belief, contrast in "they" being furniture made of meat?
Are you arguing that Romans ate their slaves? Honest to Zeus?
>it's still bizarre to see people defend mass murder
>castration
>slavery
>psychological torture
>physical tortue
>ancient rome is very much alive
>All with a straight face
>Bizzare
...
>Linguists would disagree with you, biologists would disagree with you, neurologists would disagree with you, archeologists would disagree with you...
Wat dude. It's already known animals communicate by pheromone and some kind of electrical magnetism which can be measured.
>No, no! Don't do that. Every time... this slave allegory and Ancient Rome. Why? You're glossing over the clear disparity between Roman and Gaul
Same shit different smell, thousands of years later.
>Are you arguing that Romans ate their slaves? Honest to Zeus?
No, maybe some did for laughs. They were certainly experimented on, fed slave food, castrated, killed, and bred for profit though.
Maybe some aliens will enslave humans one day but I'll be long dead. Karma.
And by the way, you should differentiate between zoos and animal fuckers. Animal fuckers have sex with an animal and then promptly discard them.
Zoos just see them as having value.
>pheromone
>electrical magnetism
Has a queen ant ever delivered a complex string of binary, in the form of alternating pheromones, as a response to a human observer? Ever? Or is it much more mundane and function-driven? I believe it's the latter.
Mentioning the types of ways in which animals can communicate does not address the levels of complexity that separates our respective communication. Dogs bark. We can also bark. That's not the extent of what we can do with sound waves. Dogs bark. I can use my fingers to send symbols to you, and you will do things with them that no dog ever has, or likely will.
>Same shit different smell
No. One is a rock solid stool, the other shows a healthy dietary balance. Romans did not eat their slaves. Egyptians did not eat their slaves. What are you on about? That's not even the extent of the differences, but I'm blown away by the fact that you'd suggest that the slaves in the Republic were for eating.
What?
>maybe some did for laughs
>experimented on
>fed slave food
>bred for profit
No. No, no, no, no, no... You... what is wrong with you? No. This is like an insult to Romans, even still. "Slave food"? Probably not human remains. If you'll even hazard the finger, point it at Caligula. Even then. Experiments. Experiments? Where are you getting this information from?
This was not the Atlantic slave trade. To invoke its specter, in light of the subject matter, and what was already hashed out from before regarding the beef, and the discussion over the moralizing...
This is unfathomably tone-deaf. There's no other way to say it. And it gets so far away from what the argument is supposed to be about, without a hint of it ever going back without some divine intervention.
Both of them have sex with an animal. This is the objection.
It's some kind of electricity that ants use, along with pheromones.
>No. One is a rock solid stool, the other shows a healthy dietary balance. Romans did not eat their slaves. Egyptians did not eat their slaves. What are you on about? That's not even the extent of the differences, but I'm blown away by the fact that you'd suggest that the slaves in the Republic were for eating.
That's the only real difference.
>No. No, no, no, no, no... You... what is wrong with you? No. This is like an insult to Romans, even still. "Slave food"? Probably not human remains. If you'll even hazard the finger, point it at Caligula. Even then. Experiments. Experiments? Where are you getting this information from?
Ancient egypt. Are you totally oblivious to history?
>Both of them have sex with an animal. This is the objection.
One just uses them as an object, and the other ensures their well-being for life.
>It's some kind of electricity that ants use
That does not equal the grammar that we use. It's not an argument of water and sand. It's an argument of water and saltwater.
>That's the only real difference
Genus Homo, Genus Canis, rights and freedoms, clothing, property rights, levels of understanding...
Ritual sacrifice.
>Ancient egypt
Why did you specifically focus on Rome, then? I accused you of suggesting that Romans ate their slaves, and your response was that maybe some did "for laughs". As a matter of fact, now I actually want you to provide evidence of this happening.
>Are you totally oblivious to history
No, but I would like you to cite exactly where you think
>slaves
were being divvied up for fine wine and dining, like cattle.
>One just
Both. Have. Sex. With. The. Animal. The splitting of hairs doesn't change that. If you are still dead-set on portraying yourself as a Roman, then, sure. Have sex with your slave, who is legally your property and cannot refuse your advances or protest being forcibly impregnated, and then give them flowers and treats afterwards. Maybe some nice jewelry.
>according to what?
>posts nothing
well there you have it
Still a language
Animals today are the same as ancient slaves but we eat them
You can literally google any ancient society, including romans and ritual cannibalism.
You don't know much about history.
I wish I could afford jewelry for my dogs.
Actual research and studies not backed by large profit corporations.
>according to what?
>things, trust me
Oh much better.
Maybe you should read up on ancient civilizations?
>Still a language
... If you're going to resort to this level of "dialogue", then you should have no illusions as to why I reason you could care less about violating your pets. You've demonstrated the clear ability and willingness to pay attention to clear distinctions, let alone subtle nuance.
Why is it now that you can't differentiate between chirping, and syntax?
>Animals today are the same as ancient slaves but we eat them
They are not. If I can Google any ancient society, then you can too- and you should remember that you tried to whip out this allegory again by mentioning Rome and Egypt. So, if you're going to move the goalposts... you may as well also use Google to do that.
>ritual cannibalism
No. Not ritual cannibalism. That would imply that either society regularly practiced cannibalism for the sake of their state religion. And that's not true. Why? Osiris, for starters.
>haha read a book
well that definitely proves it
>... If you're going to resort to this level of "dialogue", then you should have no illusions as to why I reason you could care less about violating your pets. You've demonstrated the clear ability and willingness to pay attention to clear distinctions, let alone subtle nuance.
Why is "clear nuance" so important for sex to you... but not.. castration, experimentation, forced cannibalism, psychological and physical long-term isolation, and death?
What are you even arguing here honestly.
You think a dog needs to write an essay on why it prefers sex over being left alone for 14 hours a day, castrated, fed the same cannibal cereal everyday, and/or killed when they're too tumor ridden to be medically affordable?
>They are not. If I can Google any ancient society, then you can too- and you should remember that you tried to whip out this allegory again by mentioning Rome and Egypt. So, if you're going to move the goalposts... you may as well also use Google to do that.
Why do you think they're so different? Legally they are the same.
>No. Not ritual cannibalism. That would imply that either society regularly practiced cannibalism for the sake of their state religion. And that's not true. Why? Osiris, for starters.
You need to learn how to use google.
It was thought in ancient rome that drinking the blood of a gladiator would make a male more fertile.
Remember that gladiators were usually slaves.
I dunno what it is about sex that makes people's logical faculties completely shut down.
But somehow they are okay with mass-traumatizing obscene tortures.
If you respect animals, don't ever touch an animal that doesn't belong to you, and respectfully ensure the animal's life is taken care of, there's nothing wrong with sex.
If you try to fuck someone else's life, they will usually be killed if discovered, so you are literally risking their life. That's why fencehoppers and people who watch their friend's animals to fuck them are so bad. They risk the slave's life to get their rocks off. It's not right.
There's a difference between using an animal and caring about one.
>someone else's life
Sorry meant someone else's animal. Autocorrect.
>Why is "clear nuance" so important for sex to you
By Jove! Because it's about consent, maybe? Maybe? Maybe, if you don't want to get rapey? Because that's the alternative- you cast out this annoying, tedious thing so you can sex the dog and get yourself off.
You would think this would matter to someone who wasn't treating the dog like an object. Alas, as I have said in the past many times, I have pressed long and hard enough to get some truth out of you.
>castration
>experimentation
Stop. Stop it. You mention this every time, and every time, it's argued why it's nonsensical for you to keep trying to mention it. Look above! It's already been discussed, amicably even.
>death
And what is this one even supposed to mean? What sort of impressions did you take away after hours of replies that go well over 2000 characters?
Death? Some strawman? How are you to even ask me what I'm arguing? I have told you, with frankness, what I argue. It's in every reply. It was overt in the first few posts I made. And since you keep bringing up castration, by God, it's right there. You know what's being argued, and I don't understand what you get from feigning ignorance, besides the obvious.
>You think a dog needs to write an essay on why it prefers sex over being left alone for 14 hours a day
This alone proves that you know what's being argued, no matter how you twist or exaggerate it. You keep, saying it. Castrated. Castrated. Castrated. Cannibal cereal, castrated.
>By Jove! Because it's about consent, maybe? Maybe? Maybe, if you don't want to get rapey? Because that's the alternative- you cast out this annoying, tedious thing so you can sex the dog and get yourself off.
Yeah which is a dumbass logical fallacy. I'll take you seriously when you ask for dogs' consent to not be mass slaughtered and cannibalized.
Do you know how many times you've said that by now? Those same things? These same sentences, with nothing, no further substance to them? It's just these sentences and nothing more- that does not an argument make. Even if you tried to cobble it together, it's demonstrably not a strong one. That's been demonstrated in this thread, all 1/46ths of it. Because there are 46 ways to argue against it. Pages upon pages. Every detail, every one, and I severely doubt that it's worth either of our respective free time for me to argue things that haven't been leveled yet. God willing, "castration". Every time.
>Legally they are the same
Legally, there's this thing called rape. Funny, that.
>It was thought in ancient rome that drinking the blood of a gladiator would make a male more fertile
perseus.tufts.edu
perseus.tufts.edu
Here, a read. Because you'll tell me to Google, but you won't provide your own evidence for your own claims. Enlighten me on what Pliny thinks about drinking the blood, and why that matters to the various echelons of Roman society.
And of course, you'll go on to suggest that the person laboring on your behalf is somehow deficient in their logical faculties, because of sex.
Do you wonder why I suggest you rape things? I don't even say that to make offense. I ask you, frankly, if you could still wonder why I perceive you as I do, given the way you've chosen to behave in regards to this. What am I supposed to think? What can I reasonably conclude?
Rape, of course. If not because of the logic in the overarching argument, because of the character of those who shy away from it, doubling, tripling, even quadrupling back on all sorts of things antithetical to sense-making.
For what about my objection is a fallacy, my good man?
I just like to fuck my dog, I feel like you boys over complicated the fuck out of things.
Romans, castrations and cannibalism have nothing to do with me and my baby girl
wat dude
Furries.
>hehe poop
I gota smoke a bowl and drop a massive glob of sperm deep.
GSD babe is pawing at me.
Good night all.
I think they took a gap thread too seriously
We do that since the beggining of Eugenics.
I'm for that, because humans can't control their population.
As for pets, we are in a situation where we believe we will have an infinite amount of resources.
They don't see the need to control the numbers, or we will all degrade our living condition.
The movie snowpiercer is a good analogy of this kind of choices
I’m literally in love with my dog
Me too
I’ve only been gone from home 2 days and I’m already missing her.
Apparently when I’m gone she carry’s my cloths or bed sheets around with her everywhere, tears me up inside.
She’s an Akita, what do you have?
That's cute.
I always keep an old clothe from me when I go, it reassure her, and she like my smell.
I got a wonderful dalmatian girl.
If Feralfag is around, hi to you. Haven't said hi in a while.
Gotta narrow down what feral tag you mean, I’m Akita boy but I also know there’s Kaiser around occasionally too.my brother in law has a Dalmatian, very loving but a bit submissive, then again she’s also fixed.
How’s yours with dominance and defence?
Akita’s have a reputation for being Aggressive outside the family so they’re a bit unique in being both submissive and dominant
Late to respond. But there is one specific individual who has been given the name feralfag. Guess he's not around right now.
Don’t worry bout it, sleeping time and I’ll find out later, I tend to be active in the community since Zv s recreation
I need this
Sorry I had to go.
My dalmatian is very special, she is deaf. So I have the impression she learn faster, and she is less dominant/agressive/stubborn than the average dalma.
I haven't see a lot, but all the guys I meet who had one said they were very stubborn, and didn't listen good.
Mine is none of that, a pure pearl, she's deaf, but she listen
Bump
I went to bed and this post is still up. It was my post in the previous feral thread which inspired the first post in this one.
I love feral cuties, but a real animal is not an intellectual equal. Engaging them in sex is predatory. They're within your power and lacking for mental and emotional maturity.
how retarded and weak does a person have to be before you think it is morally acceptable to fuck an actual dog
I have sex many times with my girl, no penetration, just fingering/ liking, and actually every times it's her who initiate it.
Explain this to me please
>I love feral cuties, but a real animal is not an intellectual equal. Engaging them in sex is predatory. They're within your power and lacking for mental and emotional maturity.
>the rich political elite shouldn't engage with the poor and middle class
Ok I guess
An what about dolphins?
As they have a larger brain, can communicate, can empathize, surely they can consent!?
If they can, maybe other animals have this ability?
And BOOM!
Dogs can consent
>force fed the same cannibal cereal every day
Interview my feline and she'll argue that I don't feed her enough kibble despite growing chunkier every day... Animals are animals. Their brains are seriously not that complex compared to ours. Zoophiles just l o v e to humanize animals for the hope their precious dog will somehow "love them back" despite whimpering in pain and being fearful of them due to the rape they endure on the daily basis.
My girl is not that at all, she's very happy in life, and really love me. Everyone can tell it, so you just put that case of sadists in the same basket as true zoo.
Think twice before speaking, that always help. It works for vaginas too
I'm just memeing user. You can steel man the sort of argument he's trying to make, but they still tend to lead to conclusions that most people don't practice.
Humans can't consent either since consent requires knowledge about the consequences of the actions you take. We don't have guaranteed access to the future, so out the window it goes.
Dolphin brains aren't comparable to human brains. Look at the John C. Lilly studies, and no, Peter the dolphin isn't a case you can use to prove that animals "want sex" because Peter literally lived in a shallow pool most of his life with no other dolphins to truly have a companionship with, hence why human companionship was the next "best" thing. Why do you think rat lovers tell people "you need rats in pairs or more if you want to own them"? Otherwise these intelligent animals get depressed and want to die.
Dog brains aren't even comparable to cat brains in the slightest so why do you zoofags think they're somehow comparable to a human's?
You can't convince me that finding sexual interest in animals is somehow "okay". Your dog can't literally speak to you, and despite the limited intelligence they still run on pure instinct. Stop trying to convince yourself that you're "better" than anything either, you're still an animal rapist.
We can't know every outcome in the possible future, that's stupid to think "Oh consent can't exist cause we don't logically know future events". Even if we don't know the outcome of something, the fact that we as a species can logically understand that things can happen due to whatever positive or negative we choose, we have the choices and logic to make decisions that will stick to a path that is desirable to us.
That's why people should stay sober if having hookups, that way when something is said and done nobody can truly go "Welp I was under the influence so I couldn't properly understand my outcomes here". Fuck that. You're sober, you're aware of your situation, you either go forward or you don't.
>rapist
So we are:
Abductors of animals we have now as pet, or food
Rapists too because of insemination
Killers because of meat
Torturers because of experimentation; and we also enslave them.
And you're saying it's bad that I can pleasure my female dog is that right?
Like, pic related is rape, totally
user... that's because we use a pragmatic threshold of probability.
She knows it brings you pleasure to lick and finger her. She's doing what she thinks will make the master happy.
Dogs are bread to be submissive and compliant. And you provide her with food. If a dog getting their vagina licked means they'll get food, and they know it, they'll let you lick away to keep their dog bowl full.