Explain me why and how pic related is rapae.
>Dog clearly enjoying it
>No restrains, so she can walk away if wanted
>No penetration , so in the view of law, no rape
And if this is rape, how will you call sexual activity with an animal clearly not enjoying it, in restrains, and hurted? Super rape?
Also feral fur thread
Explain me why and how pic related is rapae
Mason Kelly
Other urls found in this thread:
huffpost.com
pets.webmd.com
thebark.com
stafforini.com
researchgate.net
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Hunter Turner
Buddy, as a feral fan and former artist I've accepted that we just wont win.
It's best to not argue and enjoy ourselves in private, and if were lucky enough, our own circles.
Aiden Gomez
I guess that's it, but sometimes I have some good conversation with people that are not zoo, just understand it.
Anyways, how are you tonight?
Is the picture from you?
Xavier Morales
From my experience it wasn't a a poor choice to discuss with non-zoo people, even irl, but overall not worth it.
But no, my art wasn't that at level. I like to think before I quit I was getting close though. I wont post my work, and if i do return I'd rather not have my personal opinions potentiality tied back to them
Though I'm pretty alright user, hbu
Jaxson Gutierrez
Absolutely foul
Caleb Martin
Nice to hear.
I like sometimes just let go some fact of history, and see how people will react. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes not
Why did you quit?
Isaiah Lee
Not gonna lie, when I did open up to people I was surprised how calm they responded about it.
But I had too much going on and once I started gaining a little traction I got cold feet. I didn't wanna risk my/families public life being affected by some asshole online figuring out who I was.
Didn't help that I was also having relationship issues between two women.
Jaxson Jackson
Sure it won't help.
I have not make the step yet, I'm a little adraid of the consequences.
Just taking temperatures now, and we'll see
Jonathan James
What do you mean by "make the step"?
My interpretation of that feels off.
Chase Nelson
we live in a society and we have rules
Landon Martinez
to get in the water, to reveal myself to my best friend and some family members
Sorry English is not my native language, so I may misuse some expressions
Christian Thomas
>Filename
Carter Lee
>she
kys
Grayson Brown
Jace Davis
Ryder Myers
Ah, I got you.
My advice would be to take your time. Personally a total of 5 people know about my tastes, I still talk regularly to 4 of them.
Joseph Rogers
that bitch was so weird
Luis Brown
>dog clearly enjoying it
I will, I don't want to break relationship because of what I do in private.
Would like to know some zoo in my area, but it's difficult IRL, and I don't believe enought in internet to find people next to me
Joshua Hernandez
I haven't told a living soul I'm a zoo irl, I'm terrified of what could happen and the result is I've become gradually more and more introverted to the point where I have no friends left that I talk to more than once or twice a year :(
William Cruz
The argument against bestiality is the same as that against statutory rape and incest. Even if the victim enjoys it you have compromised informed consent.
The argument is much weaker for animals since the whole nature of consent is different for them but it is still there for some people
Easton Allen
Norsk?
Ian Foster
That's fair, but I told my wife. I figured it would be best to just tell her instead of her maybe walking in on me a fucking a dog.
But thats a choice only you can make. Actually both of those things.
Thomas Myers
This argument is much weaker when every country just slaughter in mass everyday, without any animal consent, insemination too, and I can give a list but you get the point
Yep, I'll see where it bring me
Blake Gray
Ja
John Reed
It's the same as the argument against pedophilia and incest. Even if the victim enjoys it you still have compromised informed consent.
I realize that the whole nature of consent is different with animals but it is still a consideration for some people
Adam Sanders
See AndNo need to thanks me
Carter Stewart
That isn't healthy.
If you dont have anyone you can trust irl you're shit out of luck. I fingered my best friends landlords dog when i was HIGHLY drunk and told him, we drank more and its now an inside joke between us of sorts.
Bentley Hughes
How did your wife react to that?
Gavin Foster
You're really lucky
I wish I know someone who's into that, but For now I don't think so.
Maybe in the future
Don't you work or have to get outside sometimes?
You live near a city or in da woods?
Ayden Reyes
Honestly she wasnt too phased by it, even admitting to being interested by dog dicks before.
Sadly we havent explored any zoo together past a baddragon toy I bought her.
I cant disagree that I was lucky to get away with that. I do honestly feel guilty about it and had I been more level headed never would have touched another persons companion. The landlord as far as I know is still unaware, likely would have fucked me up, and my friend isnt into that stuff personally.
Austin Sullivan
Oh I have a normal job and coworkers I just don't have any kind of social life outside of the office.
Fortunately they never ask about my private life.
Jaxon Morales
Sjeldent å finne noe som er interessert i dette.
Fra?
Ayden Watson
I understood you fingered her with him present, the sense of your sentence made it that way to me.
And aren't there some good guys you can be friend with? Or just to hang out and drink sometimes?
It's always good to be with people, for me at least
Matthew Howard
oslo området
Juan Bailey
området=comrade?
Just guessing
Kayden Davis
området=the area
Adam Wood
Samma her.
Gutt eller?
John Butler
No. He had showed me earlier how she enjoyed having her ass smacked, like a really rough petting.
She was a beautiful large white lab mix and often would hang out in my friends room.
Once we started drinking for the night he decided to get some pot and had to meet a friend outside. They were out there for a while and I started petting her, she turned around wanting slaps, and I guess I got bold. Next thing I know I've got two fingers in her and shes humping my hand.
Adrian White
Ok, I guess it's like every language, you have to learn it instead of just guessing
If it's wasn't so overpriced where you live I would come, there is good stuff to look at, lots of nature, it look great!
Just the temperatures are a bit aggressive
Hot
Elijah Sullivan
ja, med hannhund
Brayden Ortiz
i'm in my thirties and still love to do all the nerdy things i did as a teenager
my old friends went on to start families and have kids and then we drifted apart
the ones that still contact me just do it to get free tech support
life would be pretty depressing if i didn't have my dog to support me
Lincoln Rogers
Don't tell that please, everyone is making babies around me, I will get my vasectomy this year so it'a a no-no for me...
I'm not 30 yet, but time is coming and I'm still in my hobbies, and not interested at all to have a girlfriend/create a family
Sebastian Butler
Jaxon Rivera
really? they let you have a vasectomy before you've had any children?
I think my parents still haven't given up hope that I will find a girlfriend and start a family eventually, as if i want to bring more people into this society
Lincoln Nguyen
how do you guys do with that kind of attraction?
I mean is it just a fantasy or something you actually do? And if you do how did you come to that?
Nathan Bennett
Well you have to find a doctor that accept to do the operation, it can be difficult, but a friend got a list of doctors inclined to do that to single guys
For me it's clear that I will never have childs. They both know and are disappointed
Did you even read that thread before asking?
Brayden Miller
I did but didn't find what I was looking for. I'm sorry maybe I' didn't ewpress well what I'd like know.
Levi Ross
I enjoy pleasuring my dog if it is what you asked for.
Some guys are here just for the pics, other do.
Jordan Kelly
I am here for the pics but I also have sex with my dog, I know she loves it because she pesters me about it sometimes.
I’m also straight up in love with my baby girl.
And no I don’t believe this is something you should tell other people at all, it’s not like being gay where you can just come out of the closet with it.
Connor Robinson
Any story to share?
Maybe one time to be gay will be the same as being zoo. In ancient times, zoophilia was tolerated, even accepted or worshiped, maybe people will accept this simple fact
Jayden Fisher
bump
Henry Robinson
I agree its not a thing that you should openly share. It something that will bring you a load of problem in a lot of countries. And a lot of people react very strongly to it.
But as frowned uppo as it is it seems to be something rather "common". A lot of people seem to have a the very least some 'beasty' fantasy even if they don't act on it. If that wouldnt't be the case BD shouldn't be the very successfull company it is and other maker wouldn't have emmergerd all around the world.
Jason Morgan
Yeh well either way I have no intent to ever out myself to even my mot trusted family members, it can literally get me thrown in jail and have my girl put down.
Cause that’s logic, if a dog becomes sexually active with humans then lets kill it for its own good.
As for story’s what is there to tel really, I have a beautiful Akita girl who is aggressively loyal and protective to the family, smart and endlessly patient with children.
She likes to walk around on the reef with me (even brought her little reef booties) and we hunt rabbits and foxes at night (she’s caught quite a few too).
I’m so used to sharing a bed with her that this time I’m away from home I’m actually struggling to sleep properly.
Christopher Hill
You can't use logic with moral fags because they didn't use logic to arrive at their morals.
We cage and slaughter animals every second but allowing one to have sex with you is wrong and abusive, right?
Ryder Sanders
what the actual fuck is this thread
Lucas Morris
I understand your relation with your girl.
It's hard to leave her too long for me too
You must be new.
Welcome
Lucas Young
yeah that's how i feel too
it's such juicy gossip that eventually the wrong people will know and start ruining your life
Christian Taylor
As much As I hate to say it you are right. But I only hate to say it bc It's against moral standards.
Asher Miller
KYS
Jackson Howard
yea i usually don't come here, i wonder why
Isaiah Garcia
It's been argued successfully before. The end result was
>wat dude
and other anons taking up the charge.
To no one's surprise.
>we just wont win
>enjoy ourselves in private
>our own circles
Guilty, guilty, guilty.
Guilty.
Something that's been argued many times before... to no avail.
Cannibalism was tolerated in the past, so we should go back to being cannibals.
>You can't use logic with moral fags because they didn't use logic to arrive at their morals
I have watched this play out for 20 years.
Jeremiah Murphy
Yes.
Blake Evans
no way that rape
Ryan Bell
I didn't even digest the OP. The cartoon image contains a restraint already, and that's not considering the fact that it's a fantastical representation of what would naturally be rape.
Good job.
Angel Powell
Especially when I know she frets when I’m not around, partially my fault because I coddle the fuck out of her and spend all my time with her.
Advanced Cred Forums
I don’t really think my sexuality is all that important to other people anyway, they see me as a really affectionate fur parent and that’s all they need to see.
Joseph Taylor
>they see me as a really affectionate fur parent and that’s all they need to see
There are so many unfortunate parallels here. Those words read like someone who keeps a secret in the basement. "That's all they need to see".
And what are you hiding?
Zachary Hernandez
woa cool a feral thread again. Nice.
Gays set the slippery slope, so it will be a thing one day. Animals are ADULTS not children, and they are sexual beings when they are sexually mature.
Grayson Wilson
Are you hiding a chromosome user?
Brayden Sanders
Nah you can't do it IRL, or people irl will target your animals and try to kill them. Keep it online only.
Leo White
>Animals are ADULTS not children
>sexual beings
>sexually mature
Not only have anons beat me to the punch with things that have been said, but we've already been over this as well. It's always the same talking points...
They're poor justifications, and simply restating them as if the world conforms to this overly-rationalized fantasy reality won't change that. Now maybe you can't remove yourself from the willful delusion, but that changes nothing about what you've chosen to stand by.
Why would I be?
Adam Cook
My girl wouldn’t like a vibrator, it’d most likely result in her attacking it, she did that to my Xbox controller.
I’m hiding that I give my dog multiple orgasams and that I cum in and on her to nobody’s displeasure.
My girl is insatiable, sexual beings is putting it lightly with some dogs
Jose Lopez
it's not like we hide our dogs from society, both my previous girl and my current boy dog were and are loved by everyone they meet, with lots of compliments on how happy and friendly and pretty they are.
it's not like we lock our dogs up in a rape dungeon, whenever we're not in the bedroom they are completely normal dogs with normal lives. We just let them break a silly taboo that most people have and truly be our equals, and it just makes them live happier, more fulfilling lives.
it's a shame society has to be so irrational about it
William Thompson
In english the phrase is "coming out", used by gay previously. But you can say "coming out as a zoo" or "coming out the zoo closet". English is weird.
weird piclool
I dunno if you should tell a married partner. You're already in pretty deep, and that's just another divorce alimony justification down the line. Be careful.
It makes no sense considering nobody cares about animal consent for anything at all. It's a smokescreen argument. Animals are legally slaves, but 40 year old women still equate them to children while gleefully feeding them chopped up dogmeat, castrating them, telling them how good they are, etc. Normies are stupid dude. That isn't going to change.
I call normal dog ownership abusive in most cases.
Nathan Brooks
You're playing with fire. If they tell the wrong person, it can lead to the death of your animal.
Why feel the need to tell anyone about it? I'm not really a people person outside of money transactions, so they don't need to know shit about me except how much I charge to do certain service for them. Cutting grass and shit.
Why need one? Aren't your dogs your social life? That's what they are for me. If I had tons of cash I'd be taking them around to fun places, not wasting it at clubs with random people. It's just not my thing. People are boring.
I'm not, outside of business.
Lucas Walker
This
coming out of the kennel
Not recommended but the name makes me kek
Chase Clark
>There are so many unfortunate parallels here.
Those words read like someone who keeps a extra chromosome in his genes
You seem not to understand what we do with dogs
Thx for the input, I appreciate it
Cooper Watson
No I actually do it, but it's more similar to normie dog ownership than you think but with more emphasis on dog health and comfort. Too bad I'm not rich or I would literally abandon my current business and go traveling across the world with my dogs.
My business is a source of stress as well as money. Never sure what the next month will bring.
Some people would try to kill your dog because there's no laws to protect them.
Good idea. Family turns on you from what I've learned in life. My family is pretty bad already but even a good fake little christian family can quickly turn on you if jeeeeeeebus says to (or their pastor). Robots.
John Sanders
wat dude
Logan Stewart
>They're poor justifications, and simply restating them as if the world conforms to this overly-rationalized fantasy reality won't change that. Now maybe you can't remove yourself from the willful delusion, but that changes nothing about what you've chosen to stand by.
Dude... real objective biological and literal fact. Are poor justifications?
You have zero common sense and decide your conclusion before you decide your argument.
Julian Perry
>Xbox controller
>dog
Why.
>I’m hiding that I give my dog multiple orgasams and that I cum in and on her to nobody’s displeasure
>nobody's displeasure
Except the people you need to hide it from?
>it's not like we hide our dogs from society
The above just stated that many do. Why, oh why, do you do this? Read the above. Read above in the thread.
>people irl will target your animals and try to kill them
Through a few posts alone, I already have a story of why you aren't sharing this with the public. Some of you are self-aware of that much alone.
>it's not like we lock our dogs up in a rape dungeon
>whenever we're not in the bedroom they are completely normal dogs with normal lives
>not in the bedroom
>normal dogs
>break a silly taboo
>truly be our equals
>they are completely normal dogs with normal lives
Seriously.
>society has to be so irrational about it
Society is not the irrational one in this relationship.
>nobody cares about animal consent for anything at all
Nobody?
>chopped up dogmeat
Oh God, not again. Checklist: Sexually mature animal bodies, cognitive dissonance about slavery, cannibal cereal, castration...
Please. Please, please, please. All this is doing is establishing the comorbidity of zoophilia. Does there not exist a zoo that is "put-together" enough to better argue these things, or are they wise enough to not try?
>Those words read like someone who keeps a extra chromosome in his genes
>You seem to not understand what we do with dogs
I want to know how "unfortunate parallels" implies any of that. Every time with you guys, it's a lot of random, non-sequiturs from left field.
Look at this one. There's nothing that can be said anymore about the topic, so these are the defaults.
Jaxon Watson
I don't speak nonsense, but you seem really implicated in this thread.
Good
Blake Morales
>Oh God, not again. Checklist: Sexually mature animal bodies, cognitive dissonance about slavery, cannibal cereal, castration...
Okay so why do you not care about consent in every case where it harms or kills the animal, but sex is an exception?
And dogs love sex more than food, if they're not castrated or have their sex organs ripped out near birth like usual.
Christopher Wood
What you've given does not constitute a decent enough
>real objective bi logical and literal fact
because your literal, objective statement of
>Animals are ADULTS not children
already goes wrong.
Literally, that would mean every animal, ever, was never a child and was always an adult, even what we call "animal children". That's in quotations, because if it were a literal fact that animals were adults, such a concept could not exist. So, no, it's not a literal fact. It's an example of being too liberal with literally, literally.
>but you seem really implicated in this thread
Can you find another way to say that?
>Okay so why do you not care about consent in every case where it harms or kills the animal
This has been broken down for you multiple times. It's all but been broken down for you on a foundational level.
>if they're not castrated or have their sex organs ripped out near birth like usual
Oh, for fuck's sake. Again?
Ayden Nelson
I'll bite. What's your best argument against it?
Carson Wright
Okay; You are an animal fucker just as us, but you have not yet cross the path where you no longer feel guilty about that.
You're just a shamed zoo who want us to be in the same state.
>And to keep our dogs in the sex dungeon
William Nguyen
What you describe is exactly what I think. Thonly part I have difficulties to understand is how you "hide" it. Some people here seem to live with people around them. For me this is the hardest part to overcome when "crossing the line" from fantasy to reality.
Also where I live animals are protected. So if some one is caught the dog would be placed to an other family.
For your las point. Familly are people first that just happen to be blood related to you.People should never forget that. Being familly doesn't create some holy relationship above all else automaticly. They can turn bitter very quickly as any other relationhsip.
Owen Powell
I fuck my dog and she likes it, vet says she one of the most well groomed and cared for dogs she’s ever seen as well as loyal and obedient.
Were you 2 here yesterday debating cannibalism in relation to dog lovers?
You have over complicated the fuck out of a simple prospect, dogs don’t care about any of this shit they just like to have fun, and they do in many ways when they’re my dog
Nathaniel Flores
>tfw no sex dungeon for your dog
Chase James
we only hide the fact that we have sex with them, the dogs are free to be themselves and live as normal pets. If they get horny, we help them out instead of castrating them.
You might think that is a bad thing but I challenge you to find a reason that isn't rooted in old superstitions and social taboos. Your best argument so far seems to be that it's an unfair power dynamic, like fucking a slave that you own and I can sort of see where you are coming from but I think our animals are treated far more like individuals with desires and opinions worth respecting, than what the general public does.
Hudson Carter
Are you really going to bite, or am I going to witness another incident of castration ad nauseam?
>You are an animal fucker just as us
No. You're only turning to that defense now, because it's one of the few you have left to turn towards. It's not enough that you have to be accused of something like this. So, you turn to trying to lump me in with you, and similarly try to cast me as being just as degenerate, so that it assails your internal turmoil, however present. This is not the Pollyanna Principle.
And a cold read of this reply suggests that you
>have
crossed the path where you no longer feel guilty about having sex with animals? Am I reading that right?
I don't find it odd that
>And to keep our dogs in the sex dungeon
exists only twice in the thread so far.
Jayden Rivera
Alright, good to know. You hide the fact that you have sex with them. But then they're also being called normal pets. And if they get horny, another god-forsaken line about castration.
On God, if I never read that sentence again.
>I challenge you to find a reason that isn't rooted in old superstitions and social taboos
I have done that before in previous threads. I have done that before in previous threads you were in, because on God, I have reached my monthly quota of reading about castrating animals. I have done that before in previous threads, because you recognize just one of the axioms in my arguments, the unfair power dynamic. And you just finished stating that they would be free- to live as normal pets. That's already 2 kinds of inconsistent.
And if you have to worm your way away from one of the axioms I laid out like a unpassionate mason by ignoring the argument entirely, then that tells me what I need to know about where your line of thinking ends.
It goes right over what you seem to think the argument was about. It bypasses it, and goes directly to suggesting that the animals are treated far more like individuals with desires and opinions worth respecting, despite how much of that is countered and can be dismantled in light of it.
It boils down to, "yes, but I like to fuck dogs, so it's okay anyways".
Brayden Evans
"""consent""" as he always says, but not important for slavery, cannibalism, experimentation, or death. Just sex.
>Also where I live animals are protected. So if some one is caught the dog would be placed to an other family.
No, they are usually killed.
So you must be very careful that nobody finds out so your dog doesn't get euthanized. Among the millions of puppy mills that normies support and keep buying from, why would anyone want your middle aged "sex abused" dog? They will be injected, killed, and put into production into conglomerate pet foods. End of story.
Yes but they are sexually mature is what I'm saying. They have constant sex all the time and aren't little kids.
Normies ironically goo-goo-ga-ga their dogs like they're retarded fur babies, then they send them to the slaughter when no longer convenient. The fuck?
Jayden Edwards
Holy fuck you are no longer hiding this extra chromosome now user.
Godspeed user, I don't know what you want but I hope you'll get it.
Never give up
Carson Lee
I have to leave user, I have work in the morning.
I guess that means you won this extremely serious internet argument.
Anthony Powell
Oh, don't do that. Did I ever make the case to you that consent wasn't important for slavery, or the laundry list of things you repeatedly repeat, repeatedly, repeatedly?
If you have to hoot and holler about chromosomes...
What, I don't realize that I'm making long-winded posts in a zoo thread? Or that this is Cred Forums, where we routinely call each other faggots? You keep mentioning chromosomes, but I fail to seen anything but a knee-jerk reaction.
So enlighten me, user.
>won this extremely serious internet argument
Oh, so it's autism.
Yeah.
No.
Kevin Anderson
kys faggot retard
Oliver Lewis
I dont get what you're arguing. Sex is bad because the human has power? Then isn't normal pet ownership in general bad? Or all the other things I listed? Why the double standard?
Adam Morgan
>Are you really going to bite, or am I going to witness another incident of castration ad nauseam?
I'm not personally invested in the topic. I don't like animals as companions
Sebastian Cooper
There is no double standard, because you likely realize that you just put the footnotes of the argument in question, into questions. Remove the question mark and forget the last sentence. There's your hasty generalization.
Then I'll go and make it.
Lincoln James
wat dude
Camden Carter
Good night user.
Remember to lock your dog in the dungeon when you leave.
lost
Juan Morales
This is funny it’s like feral has become loli.
“Oh I only jerk off to the art, I’m so not a pedo deep down”
Then the other autist
“Kids can consent I swear, my nieces first words were make me your cum slut sexy vegan”
Meanwhile on the other side of the screen everyone is just having an angry wank
Carson Lopez
Only a pedo would say bestiality is like loli, in a dribbling attempt to justify their abuse.
Zoos actually have sex with their dogs. Lolis are neckbeards who need to be shot for abusing actual human kids and causing lifelong psychological harm.
Animals are sexually mature SLAVES, legally and literally.
Kids must be protected from neckbeards and abusers.
Oliver Green
Displeasure of those involved, no one else needs to be involved.
And it vibrates on the floor and it moves, this makes my girl jump it because she thinks it’s a strange creature that she must chew on.
Many a bobtail lizard have met the same fate
Ryder Flores
ugh that picture is disgusting
piercings are idiotic enough on humans, i'm glad bodymods for dogs are completely banned here. if you like to crop ears and dock tails you can fuck right off
Austin Ross
As if on cue.
Brayden Phillips
In fact, in order for loli to exist in the real world, slavery of humans would necessarily have to be reinstated. Teen pregnancy would skyrocket. Litlte kids who don't know better would be abused, then dumped en masse.
There are very real reasons loli is wrong. Reasons that affect the real world.
Animal slaves are not human children, and deserve better treatment and legal protections. If someone wants to shoot your dog, there is jack shit you can do about it. If anything, the state will kill them first in an approved kill-shelter prison before a disgruntled anti-zoo will, to "protect" them from sex. Fuck off.
Jaxon Kelly
Nice try Cenk Uygur, we aren't falling for your tricks.
Oliver Rivera
You retarded fucks, this is why people hate furries. No one cares about your disgusting fetishes so keep them to yourself instead of making shit awkward. Don't rudely shove your fetish in their faces, they don't want to know. You don't see shit eaters walking around with posters telling everyone in their family how they love to eat shit. They at least have the sanity to know that is inappropriate social behavior. How the fuck are furries more mentally ill than those people? Use your fucking brain.
Ian Evans
Not a Lolicon, not saying they’re the same, I’m saying the autists involved are arguing in the same way
Camden Kelly
I came here to jerk off, some one started a dialogue, scroll jerking now has more scrolling
Aiden Cook
I like it only in the picture, and the amount is ridicule, but I find it appealing.
I would never do that to an animal btw
Nathan Nguyen
>Animals are legally slaves
>I call normal dog ownership abusive in most cases.
you're fucked in the head with those mental gymnastics you disgusting psycho, you give furries a bad image
Thomas Perry
Not him but I'm a zoo, and not a furry.
Please talk nicely
Colton Evans
Dude are you fucking stupid? Most people literally feed their animals euthanized pets. Fuck you.
Dylan Jenkins
lol
Caleb Taylor
What brand do that?
I assume high tier petfood(grain free, like Acana, taste of the wild, purizon) don't do that, right?
John Baker
David Sullivan
supermarket and dollar store brands.
Even the "grain free" and higher end kibbles include extremely toxic vegetables and meats that did not pass tests for human consumption.
Extremely contaminated pesticide ridden vegetables. Meat contaminated with melted plastic, roadkill meat, meat that's been left in the sun too long. Eyeballs, hooves, brain matter, but legally listed as "beef" or similar.
My dogs mainly eat meat, eggs, vegetables, fruit, etc. Organic, approved for human consumption.
huffpost.com
pets.webmd.com
Vet offices sell euthanized corpses to pet food companies, who then use it in the lowest brand kibbles. EXPOSE veterinary offices who do this as well as the commercial big name dog foods who buy from them.
Jace Jenkins
Dumbass normies call us the abusers. Take a look in the mirror dribbling retards. Fuck
Jackson Walker
I buy only top grade pet food, but only for when we travel, otherwise I feed her mostly raw meat and vegetables; it's cheaper and I know what I give her.
Henry Harris
is it certified organic? Only safe choices honestly, even then not so great and very overpriced for what they are. Just cuts of meat at exorbitant prices.
Canadian brands are somewhat ok, but pet food lobbies are working to change that.
Just stick to raw meat, vegetables, and fruits. Everything hydroponic or organic.
Logan Martin
why are you putting in a dog.
Dylan Bell
If you feed raw meat, freeze it for 48 hours to kill most parasites.
Otherwise you can cook the meat and it's fine if you're smart with bones. Bones can be cooked slowly over 1-2 days to be chewable. That's how the pet bone companies do it.
James Kelly
And when I have to travel for like, 2 months without a freezer?
Will look for organic food, I'm in Europe, so I think I'm less concerned by all the shit they put in food in the US. No offence
Robert Morgan
Then just cook it I guess, or deworm more often. You should deworm dogs every 6 months anyway.
Humans are full of parasites from food too, but we don't like to think about it until we get a particularly bad one.
Parker Howard
I wont' buy fresh meat every day.
I buy packets every 3 months, frozen and all, but for travelling it won't work
Don't you have a good brand you can advise me on?
Isaiah Lee
are you a fucking ethical vegan or some shit? because in that case your retarded ass mental gymnastics make even less sense when applied to what we are talking about. Why would you want to treat animals like slaves if you're against eating them? You went full retard with your argument.
Benjamin Long
>mental gymnastics
Is it a meme now?
>Inb4 sexual dog dungeon
Elijah Sanchez
Huh? What do you eat dude? Can't you just go to the store and buy some chicken breast for the mini fridge in your hotel?
I recommend meat approved for humans, not eyeballs brains or hooves.
Organ meat is okay like livers and hearts.
I already told you I acknowledge the reality of treating some slaves as food, at least until technology catches up, if ever. If we don't just go extinct first before the first meat farm is ever created.
But until then, it's an unfortunate necessity of nature. Doesn't make it right because it's still mass unnecessary suffering.
I'm actually gonna start growing my own chickens when I get the change. And hunt. That way at least I'm not feeding into the problem. But that costs money to set up too. Everything costs money.
Kayden Reed
To the user who wanted me to make my argument.
Do you want me to go all in? Because I can go all in, but then it's a matter of wasting my time and dredging up all kinds of sources, and over 50% of my posts will just be the paraphrased versions of primary sources and textbook information.
But I would be lying if I said that there wasn't some kind of satisfaction in tailoring something for the contemporary audience.
Lincoln Perez
I've gone all in. balls deep. Many times.
Lincoln Williams
>In your hotel
I'm more like an /out/ guy, hotel is for wealthy, and I'm far from that. I have food I could eat that I give to my dog IN the house, but I go travel sometimes, even in foreign countries, so dried food is the best option.
Not this user but I'm curious, let it go if you feel it, I guess would be happy to debate
Jordan Wright
Logan Clark
Sure, I've read my fair share of books on animal ethics and could need some more sources to go through.
Ryan Ortiz
>I guess (You)# would be happy to debate
I have no idea what is talking about though, I wasn't even replying to that guy
Ayden Edwards
Unnecessary suffering was put to bed earlier. You just put it to bed again by suggesting that there is an unfortunate necessity of nature.
A necessity can't be unnecessary.
He wouldn't be debating me.
I'm against the sex with animals and someone asked me to make the case again, instead of parsing it out in chunks whenever it's relevant.
You'd better strap yourselves in.
Jeremiah Robinson
So, what brand of dry food would you use?
I brace myself, and tie my dog to her cross
Logan Edwards
Dried food is alright but they need some wet too. If you travel with your dogs why can't you just go to a local supermarket and a hotplate to take with you? Where do you sleep? Don't you have kitchen facilities? Dogs can eat raw if they have to. Just deworm more, and try to flavor it. My bitches prefer cooked food with some human spices but not many. Too much sodium. I also add canine supplements. Organ meat is nice too. I've given them organic blueberries which they really like. Just whatever.
They can even eat meat pizza without getting sick. They can eat basically anything without digestive issues at this point, as opposed to normies dogs who get sick for a week if you give them a piece of chocolate. Because their bodies are so degraded and drugged from the flavoring agents in their cannibal cereal. Like the holocaust survivors used to die in ww2 when given real food, because their bodies were too degraded to digest it.
Jaxon Murphy
I put water in the food, and wait at least two hours.
I just want to have an easy way to feed her while on a trip, because I live in my car when I travel, some times without access to nothing for a week, and I don't want to give her kibble one day, fresh meat another, etc...
I've been told it's bad to change their diet all times, what do you think?
Jason Hernandez
The mass suffering is unnecessary. There's people out there who do it right, giving chickens a place to roam before instant killing them, not the warehouse torture we see in commercial places.
Use organix but be warned it's probably brains and intestines. Garbage parts of the meat. You are paying a premium for something you can get for 1/5 the price at the grocery store.
My dogs are off kibble now. I was feeding them a canadian brand but fuck it. I'd rather they just eat with me. And it was expensive.
Joshua Green
>So, what brand of dry food would you use?
Don't know anything about pet food and don't care, it's the USDA's job to keep animal treatment ethical and the FDA's job to keep food safe. I would just look up what the best one or most recommended one is.
Noah Brown
>the reality of treating some slaves as food
>it's an unfortunate necessity of nature
>it's still mass unnecessary suffering
>slaves as food
>reality
>necessity
>unnecessary
Can you count how many industrial farms are out there today, or is that going to be a source in my book on why zoophilia is degenerate?
Thomas Roberts
Yeah, I will switch to full meat soon. Prices are better and I can control it totally.
Just when travelling wich is two months a year, she will be fed kibble.
Disregarded.
Maybe you are joking?
Angel Morgan
It's bad to change their diet constantly when they are malnourished. My dogs eat different foods everyday. Solid stool but my younger husky used to get wet stool sometimes.
If you are down on your luck and must live in your car, I recommend sticking to what you've fed her. These kibbles are designed to cause wet stool when your dog goes off of them, even with far superior food. They spend billions on research for kibble.
Once you get in a better situation and stable housing, get her all kinds of meat to eat, to start. Later one, once her stomach gets stronger you can feed her random treats. Pizza, chocolate, ice cream, the same junk I eat sometimes as long as they can run it off. Just watch calories. They seem to be able to eat anything just fine. I don't recommend that for your dog right now unless you want sickness to deal with. Maybe in a couple years.
Nicholas Reed
>Disregarded.
>Maybe you are joking?
i dont even know what point you're trying to make
Asher Mitchell
Yeah which is why the FDA approves euthanized dogmeat in commercial pet food.
If there were less shitty unnecessary people, there would be less need for shitty unnecessary farms.
Kill the nigs and muslims.
Like I said, those kibbles are designed to cause wet stool when your pet goes off of them, so those 2 months out of the year will make her body sick again.
You better get an ultra expensive freeze dried brand. But then, you're paying a premium for glorified supermarket meat. I have no idea how you'd do it, but maybe look into freeze-drying your own cooked meat pellets? To take on trips with you. Might be worth it for your needs, but of course supplement with organ meat and organic multivitamin supplements.
You need to learn to be paranoid about your dog's food. The conglomerates don't care, so you should. If feeding humans human meat was legal, they'd do it too. Currently it's legal for pets.
Julian Thompson
I'm already paranoid!
To explain better
What I give her actually is a mix(50-50) between re hydrated kibble, vegetables and raw meat, frozen, I buy 25kg each 3 months.
Just when I travel, I use to live in my car, so I give only re hydrated kibble.
I will check to make my own food, maybe it's easier than I think
Carter Morris
I will go to bed now, will check the answers tomorrow.
Good night user, that was good
Adrian Gutierrez
Make sure you get organic vegetables. They are dirt cheap and make a huge difference for your health. Dogs are more sensitive to pesticides.
Keep in mind organic doesn't mean "no pesticides". It just means less.
How do you live in your car? I wouldn't travel without an RV but I want to do it one day with my dogs. With a big fancy RV. Just a dream for now. Tied down financially which is fine if I can pay for food/bills and have a little bit left over.
Meat doesn't have to be organic because it's too expensive. Get the clean cuts of meat. Muscles, organs, avoid ground meats.
Kibble can probably be made with the right techniques and machinery, if you need it to be preserved dry. I just don't know how to do it.
If I had the money to start a kibble company, my website would include 24 hour camera footage of my high end factory for all the world to see, unlike those monsters at Iams and Pedigree and Purina. Fuck them.
Henry Brooks
Kayden Lopez
replace ground turkey with a greater meat portion IMO. Like breastmeat, and add an alfalfa or seaweed canine supplement in the later stages, so you don't cook out all the nutrients.
Bentley Diaz
Yeah fuck them
It's a small car, so I just bring my stuff, and put a tent next to it.
Works great, but I will buy something like pic related soon, to travel in colder countries.
The meat I buy is whole, I got necks, inside, whole chickens, and all.
Thanks, I will put great use in that!
Nathaniel Ramirez
But why do you travel? Is it for your job?
Josiah Stewart
Yeah, I think to remove the rice and lentils too, and the potato, as it's not very good for dogs
For fun, and work sometimes.
I'm the user who work in foreign countries
Justin Watson
Potato is fine as a filler. Just get organic. My dogs love sweet potato and sometimes like russet potatoes. But they absorb a lot of pesticides, so get organic for sure.
You can probably even make 2 different types of kibble. One savory meat based one, and one berry or fruit based sweet one, for flavor. So she doesn't get bored with the taste.
Must be hard. You need a RV or something.
Adrian Clark
By the way... delete that pic. Unless it's just an example. Be very careful any personal info you post online. Your pet can be killed if found out.
Michael Reyes
Nah thats good. I travel to hotter countries, leading to Africa at the end of the month, and I go south so no need to be clothed too much.
And where I work, much colder place, I rent an apartment with friends, and that's all good
.Done it but it's just an internet pic. This brand is way too expensive for what it is, I won't get that. Just the same space
Luke Williams
>airport security has my bag set aside
>a perfect xray of the vaginal and anal canal of a horse are fully visible on screen
>lady unwraps a silicon horse pussy out of a tshirt
>have to tell her what it is
>they scan it again anyway
Camden Morgan
Kek
What country if you feel free to say it?
Easton Anderson
Going to bed, see y'a
Anthony Gomez
United States
Connor Rogers
any sexual act with someone unable to give informed consent or an animal is considered equal to rape and therefore gets you the same sentence. ask a solicitor not /b
Hunter Torres
Fuck you, body language nigga
Nathaniel Diaz
My dog whining and pushing her pussy into me and licking my crotch is consent.
When she bends her front half down with her ass in the air and moves her tail aside so I can see her glistening wet puffy pussy lips, followed by her head turning to look at me almost as if begging me.
I have consent, she want to be fucked and she don’t need to use words.
Tyler Parker
I should have done this sooner, but failed to see the logic in formatting a pre-written copypasta for zoophiles. If only you could see the mountain that contradicts what you just typed.
John Carter
That must suck. I hope they pay you well to endure that.
Careful traveling. coronavirus.
Jonathan Phillips
My girl does the same thing, even more so when she's in heat. Her last heat she wanted to fuck 2, 3, 4 sometimes 5 times in a day. She always had a satisfied look about her when she smelled my cum in her puffy bloody cookie. God the smell when she's in heat!! Nothing gets me harder than her scent and then going down on her before fucking her hot wet juicy in heat K9 pussy. She bites my neck a little when she cums and then she goes limp in orgasmic bliss.
Jayden Taylor
so if a little girl does that can i fuck them?
Isaac King
My cat likes to get the area around her tail smacked vigurously from time to time. Like to hands plapplapplapplapplap from the base of the spine down the calves.
She sounds just like her first (and only) heat and kinda yowls at me but struts her tail and present like "give me them slappos"
Thomas Ross
I don't fuck my bitches until the estrus cycle after bleeding.
No you fucking freak. Might as well fuck 6 month puppies right? DUrrr.
Evan Robinson
>No you fucking freak. Might as well fuck 6 month puppies right? DUrrr.
but you literally just said it was okay
Eli Anderson
Not him. Sex with kids = sex with puppies and foals.
Juan Campbell
In my country we have a big mink production (for fur)
The carcasses are ground down and the bonemeal is used in pet food
Brandon Hill
If mink meat has any value, humans will eat it first. Pets get the rotted ones.
Bentley Brown
Ryder Ramirez
Nope, mink is carnivore meat with a bad taste.
All the mink carcasses go to pet food (have talked to several people working at the plant)
Due to Mad Cow Disease, brain and spine are seperated into "high-risk" bonemeal and is used by a big cement company as a fuel substitution for coal in their kilns
Thomas Hall
DADDY PLEASE FUCK ME
Jackson Fisher
I don't trust pet food companies. Maybe small ones before they get bought out.
kys faggot pedo
Jordan Fisher
There's a fuck ton to read here I only got through half of it. I'm zoo exclusive, not interested in sex with people at all. I told my best friend and we are still cool, they're not into it at all but they didn't care.
Tyler Price
I fuck her through the whole heat, I'm not sure why the bleeding scent turns me on like it does, it just does and we both go crazy with lust and want. Even when she's not in heat she still wants dick every couple of days and I'm happy to oblige.
Lucas Rogers
Good dude but why tell at all? Best wishes to you and your animal companions. Cuz there's nothing better than having a daily furry group of sex partners HNNNNHHGF
Mason Carter
We, errr, we actually have food and health safety standards here
Brandon Johnson
Don't have my own dog yet but I will when I move out soon. I told them because I've known them for so long, I have no reason to hide it. Never told anyone else and currently don't plan on it. I can't get to my pictures right now I'm not on my computer otherwise I'd contribute.
Charles Thompson
Get a GSD they are total sluts.
But obviously, get more than one if you can afford it.
Austin Robinson
This, dogs are better in pairs for the time you spend at work, especially social breeds like Akita’s.
That and having a male and female gives you the best of both worlds
Wyatt Martinez
No, it gives you pups. Get two females only.
Akitas are big and don't live long. Get medium size like husky, GSD, dalmation, doberman, etc.
Christian Smith
I’m not saying to get an Akita that’s just what I have, it’s also not recommended to have 2 of the same gender with Akita’s because it’s pretty much going to result in all our fights between the 2.
Also you can get smaller Akita’s, the Japanese original Akita isn’t all that large and they still live around 12 years.
Brody Smith
My females never fight. Sort of but if you correct them they're fine.
Jonathan Gomez
Wyatt Martinez
In fact a quick google points out that Akita inu live longer than a gsd
Juan Mitchell
Well obviously if you know what you’re doing it’s fine but for the average person things should be taken a little bit differently
Logan King
I thought the big version though
yes
Grayson Johnson
Nah I’ve never owned an American Akita, only my pig hunting dogs and now my precious Akita inu.
I’m told the American breed can be aggressive with children and I rather not risk it as there are many that come through my house.
My girl is super patient with children though and has never even barked at them no matter how annoying they are, she just gets up and moves or comes over to me if she needs them gone for a while
Isaiah Hernandez
American? But I thought it was a japanese breed.
All my dogs are great with all people and dogs. But I'd rather just keep them with me instead.
Owen Adams
>kys faggot pedo
still more accepted than you furfag
you should kys instead
Zachary Gonzalez
Nothing wrong with dog rape. Always wanted to adopt a mean male dog tie him down and rape him. Your dog wont resist you tho so go for it.
Joseph Allen
please for the love of jesus christ let the rapture happen and take me away from this hell on earth
Sebastian Morales
dude, the FBI specifically hunts down pedos, as they should. They are severely and significantly targeted, as they should be.
Nobody cares about dogfuckers except the really abusive ones. Pedos are shit.
Leo Price
Did I just get banned then unbanned?
Hunter Murphy
I did... well at least I’m unbanned again.
Anyway the American Akita is just a larger box headed version of the Akita inu and supposedly a bit mentally unstable but hey, I never owned one so I don’t know
Jace James
This is rape
Nathaniel Russell
what you mean.
You mean mixed with pitbulls? I hate pitbulls.
Juan Collins
We should be so lucky.
Dylan Ramirez
Are you ready user? I decided not to put together an entire report, because that's not worth my time at all.
Isaiah Bennett
dogs go to heaven not people
Joshua Davis
Each and every rank and file zoophile argument for intercourse with a beast is irrational at its core. It all requires a severe level of demented cognition, or faulty logic that relies on tenuous, fallacious connections. It all illustrates their nonexistent capacity to distinguish between childlike intelligence and higher function. They either cannot comprehend the mountain of commonsense reasons for why what they do is a terrible indicator of their dark and sinister nature, or they make the dark and sinister more so by being willfully ignorant of it, sometimes even rationalizing complete nonsense in order to cope with it. The fact that they're taking advantage of something that lacks the proper means to say "no" or clearly and equivocally communicate intent and sense is beyond the pale. And they do it with a smile. Monsters, every single one. None, not a single one of them are "okay". There is nothing fine about what they do. There are so many clauses and conditions and exceptions they have to routinely employ in order to justify, if to no one but themselves, that it is fine. This irony of a zoophile jumping through hoops shouldn't be lost on anyone. They just want to scratch an itch, at the expense of anything and everything else around them. That's it. That's what it boils down to. 20 years of engaging all the filthy colors of the rainbow has confirmed this. You can press them for hours, lean on them with absolute prejudice, exhaust every single point of discussion they offer. Unless they also suffer from mental illness, they crack and admit their true motivations.
Then comes all of the disease and health issues. Then the painfully obvious mental gymnastics that come with the behavior. And then everything else.
Justin Lewis
Was about to go to bed. If it's to long then post it in a paste bin
Luis Wilson
A favorite argument of zoophiles is that eating animals is wrong. Eating the flesh of a dead cow isn't the same as fornicating with a living cow. One involves a dead cow. The other, involves a living cow. One isn't capable of recognizng anything. One isn't even a whole animal anymore, just flesh. But the other? The other possesses a mental capacity roughly in step with a very young child. The other does not understand the concept that you are using to justify putting yourself inside of it. It cannot speak to you in a way that another human being can. It cannot communicate something to you that another human being can. It cannot understand the fundamentally human concepts that humans can. These abstractions are beyond essentially every animal out there. Few animals even use syntax to communicate, and even then, none of them have statutes and civilizations to worry about. The point is that things like informed consent, and the multi-layered rationale of "s/he loves me" would not apply anywhere but inside of your head. Regarding the discrepancy between eating meat and having your way with it? Use your brain. Animals are never capable of choosing to weigh morality in any case, so this argument of morality from most zoophiles falls apart. Tigers do not ask to maul another animal if they are hungry. They simply do. Now, you already have a situation where humans seem to be in a unique position of power. They are the moral decision makers. Not the animals.
Ian Long
As such, the situation becomes one where these lone moral decision makers default to being the only individuals who can make moral decisions- for those who can't. Animals do not possess the ability to regard one's own good, let alone know it. This gets dangerously close to suggesting that they don't possess the same rights that humans do. That plays directly into the axiom where animals have been argued into being slaves- primarily by zoophiles. A zoophile is responsible for having making that distinction, and whenever that argument is made in the wild, they accept it fully and deliberately fail to realize what issues might arise when they do. Morality does not just concern the ability to discern goodness, but suffering. Take from that what you will. Alas, deciding to kill an animal is not a protracted event. You decide to kill the animal, and then you kill the animal. That even glosses over the process in which most animals are killed. It's called culling. Cows aren't launched out of catapults to land painfully into the side of a building. They're culled. Euthanized. Let go. Not savagely murdered. And that act isn't one where you subjugate a living thing to something that is uniquely foreign and out of their purview, by all means.
Jose Thomas
But we should revisit the problem of morality. Let's clear something up. We're concerned with the welfare of the animal, right? If that's the case, and this is all over morality, then why not invoke welfare ethics? Let's talk about welfarism. Because the welfare of the animal is clearly the concern.
>Animal welfarism, as I use the term here, is a view or family of views about the scope of moral considerability; it sets forth a particular view of the sorts of entities that moral agents can have duties to and not merely regarding (i.e., it distinguishes direct from indirect objects of moral concern). Animal welfarists may disagree about the best way to characterize the criteria for moral considerability, but they all agree that some nonhuman animals are included (usually this includes at least most mammals; many animal welfarists also include birds, reptiles, and fish), and that all nonanimals (plants, mountains, rivers, ecosystems, species, etc.) are excluded. For this reason, despite the differences among them, animal welfarist positions as a group are usefully contrasted with biocentric or ecocentric theories, which hold that one or more of these latter types of entities should also be recognized as morally considerable. On my usage, deontological and consequentialist versions of animal welfarism share the view that all members of some class of animals are properly treated as direct objects of moral concern, but differ as theories about the rightness or wrongness of actions affecting the members of that class.
stafforini.com
Sebastian Reyes
wat dude
baased
Ethan Murphy
Grayson Lee
In a nutshell, welfarism is an ethical theory that establishes the fact that it derives its conclusions from the standards of the group. It relies on the idea that actions or rules should be judged or made according to the consequences they produce. It is the view, that significantly moral consequences impact human, or animal, welfare. The utility, the value that welfarism uses to measure this, can be thought of as health, happiness, or well-being. And it's not that this is the only way to convey the utility. There are many. But for the sake of simplicity, call it well-being. You want to maximize well-being, which is steeped in the moral, and the consequences of your acts and rules will directly affect the moral. You don't want to do something immoral, you don't want to do something that harms or violates the well-being of something.
Cameron Robinson
>springer
>Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters
>Susana Monsó
>Judith Benz-Schwarzburg
>Annika Bremhorst
The introduction here sums up the thoughts of an author who has argued that some non-humana animals may in fact be moral creatures. Moral creatures, meaning they can "behave on the basis of moral motivations". In other words, well-being guides their behavior in a non-neglible way.
>while animals probably lack the sorts of concepts and metacognitive capacities necessary to be held morally responsible for their behaviour, this only excludes them from the possibility of counting as moral agents
Further explanation shows what the author suggests. "Animals probably lack the sorts of concepts and metacognitive capacities necessary to be held morally responsible for their behavior". This prevents them from being moral agents. It doesn't, however, prevent them from being moral subjects. It doesn't prevent them from being at the mercy of morality
>even if their lack of sophisticated cognitive capacities prevents us from holding them morally responsible
Think about that. The bull can't be held morally responsible for goring you, but that doesn't mean you can't violate it.
Brayden Jones
>The empirical evidence gathered until now suggests that Rowlands may be on the right track and that some animals are indeed capable of behaving morally. Some studies, for instance, have found that animals are sometimes willing to help others when there is no direct gain involved, or even a direct loss.
There's some evidence to establish that animals could possess moral behavior. The fun is in knowing that many zoophiles will think this supports their side of the argument.
>While we believe that all this evidence provides prima facie support for Rowlands’ position, in this paper our aim is not to engage in an empirical or conceptual assessment of the claim that animals can be moral subjects. Rather, we shall grant that moral subjecthood in animals is at least a theoretical possibility with some empirical plausibility.
>Our focus, instead, is going to be on determining the ethical consequences that follow from considering that a certain animal is a moral subject.
So hold your horses.
Aiden Gutierrez
What you have here is a drawing. Some kind of two dimensional fiction. A cartoon, if you will. So it's not rape.
It's some kind of odd fantasy for people to look at and masturbate while thinking of.
Not sure how you've gotten confused about this. Are you some kind of simpleton? Next time you have a question like this, skip Cred Forums and just ask an adult nearby.
Ryder Green
Here are some things to consider.
>Rawls states that “equal justice is owed to those who have the capacity to take part in and to act in accordance with the public understanding of the initial situation” in which the principles of justice are chosen (Rawls 1971, 505)
>This means that, in his view, “it is precisely the moral persons who are entitled to equal justice,” where moral persons are understood as those beings who are “capable of having […] a conception of their good,” as well as “a sense of justice”
>While any theory that requires individuals to be moral in order to matter morally can be questioned
>the fact remains that characterising humans as the only moral creatures may contribute to justifying a view of our species as superior to the rest, and of nature as being somehow at our disposal
Remember the countless times slaves have been mentioned.
>However, we will argue that this is not the only ethical consequence attached to the idea of animals as moral subjects. It is generally assumed that the kind of ethical treatment a certain being is entitled to depends upon the type of being she is.
>While this idea has been questioned by some authors
>most ethicists consider that a species’ features are the cornerstone of the type of ethical treatment its members deserve
Carter Gutierrez
>White, for example, links the very idea of ethics to the appreciation of a species’ capacities. He does so by referring to the notion of vulnerability:
Pay attention, because this is important.
>Ethics- our labeling actions as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’- is grounded in the idea that the type of consciousness that we have gives us special capacities and vulnerabilities. When we label something as ‘wrong’, then, we’re saying that it crosses the line with regard to not respecting some fundamental feature that makes us human.
>It seems, indeed, plausible to consider that the ways in which members of a species can be harmed make them vulnerable in certain specific ways, and, in turn, shape the kinds of duties we might hold towards them. For instance, it makes no sense to say of a non-sentient being that she has a right not to be subjected to unnecessary pain. Taking this idea as our point of departure, we will argue that there is a specific kind of harm that can affect moral subjects as such, and that certain specific rights or entitlements follow from this. And, importantly, we will argue that this specific kind of harm cannot be captured merely by saying that the individual is suffering, that her experiential welfare is impaired.
Julian Ward
Think back to the part where a zoophile says that it's a-okay to penetrate his slave. Yep. Do you know why it's perceived as wrong? Because it crosses the line with regards to not respecting some fundamental feature that makes us human. What's the fundamental feature that makes us human? Why, it's what makes us moral agents. It's what doesn't make those moral subjects, moral agents. It's that distinction, that division, between us and the moral subjects who are ultimately incapable of being held morally responsible for their actions. But not us. We're culpable. We can be held accountable. We can make decisions they cannot. This is the problem. This is why the animal fucking is rape. This is it. Informed consent is a uniquely human thing, and no animal can reciprocate that. They cannot understand that. It is not for them. This act of sex from a human to an animal can only then be something other than what follows when you involve things like informed consent. What follows, when there is a sincere, communicated, concerted exchange of information on what's expected to happen and what's happening, with confirmation of both things. And what is that? We call it rape. And since every human being isn't a model version of something that could be the perfect hypothetical, none of the many zoophiles are such that can reasonably interpret "body language", especially given that it's the nature of "body language" that renders their justifications moot. "Body language" is the epitome of the limits that constrain a moral subject. Moral, subject. They are subjected in a number of ways by the human being. "Body language" is the part where the specific kind of harm cannot be captured merely by saying whether the individual is suffering, that their experimental welfare is impaired.
This is a basic concept for most people, and most of them don't even need to put it into words to communicate that shared understanding. But not zoophiles.
Charles Hill
Now because this is an argument involving zoophiles, let's make the welfarism more appropriate.
>We are going to argue that the ethical implications that follow from moral subjecthood cannot be captured solely in terms of welfare. The word ‘welfare’ has many different meanings, stemming from debates in axiology, political philosophy, animal ethics, and animal welfare science. For present purposes, we will use it in a narrow sense, to signify ‘experiential welfare’ or ‘subjective quality of life,’ in the hedonistic sense of these terms.
>Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters
The part about hedonism is important.
>Two prominent ways of interpreting utility are, to use Cohen’s (1993) terms; preference satisfaction, that is, a way of treating how people make preference orderings of states of the world with their preference being more satisfied as higher ranking states are reached; and hedonic welfare, that is a desirable or agreeable state of consciousness- enjoyment or happiness or even pleasure. The second interpretation has a long tradition (e.g. the greatest happiness for the greatest number) though even Bentham had already insisted that there was no “sufficiently manifest connection between the idea of happiness and pleasure on the one hand, and the idea of utility, on the other”(quoted in Roemer, 1996, p. 13).
researchgate.net
We're talking about considering both the desirable state of consciousness for the animal, and the preferences, or lack thereof, from which an animal might have in their behavior.
Nolan Turner
>the nature of animal minds with regard to their capacity to feel pain and other adverse feelings can form the basis for an ethical account of experiential well-being in animals
>On the other hand, experiential well-being is at the core of one of the most important and most recognized principles in animal ethics, i.e., the principle of non-maleficence
>This principle asks us not to cause extensive unnecessary harm to others without their consent
>Among them is, most importantly, the rule to provide for the basic physical and psychological needs of animals that are under human care
>This means that welfare ethics establishes an argument that connects physical and psychological needs with welfare and connects welfare with a normative value.
>If animal ethics is concerned with animal welfare and welfare is indeed “solely [dependent] on the mental, psychological and cognitive needs of the animals concerned”
>then the range of connections among capacities, needs and welfare must be considered
>However, some ethical problems cannot be fully captured by welfare approaches. If good welfare was the only important ethical premise, then we could potentially instrumentalize, objectify, ridicule, or even kill animals as we like- as long as we did it painlessly.
>The question is if doing so still constitutes kinds of harms that occur even if the animals do not immediately suffer. In humans, at least, we clearly assume that objectification for example does damage to a human's dignity even if the person herself may not perceive it that way. Therefore, many ethicists meanwhile employ concepts such as respect and dignity in animal ethics as well (213), and develop approaches based on considering the animals' capabilities (205), integrity (214), or rights (215), Such accounts bear the potential to argue beyond the claim of welfare.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Austin Thompson
Something something violating vulnerabilities. It should surprise no one that most zoophiles argue on the basis of hedonistic welfare. "I'm not hurting the animal", they say. Things of that nature. So:
>What characterises the form of welfarism that we are concerned with, and constitutes the focus of our critique, is the endorsement of a hedonistic account of the good, according to which the only intrinsic good is pleasure (understood, in a broad sense, to encompass both physical pleasure and psychological enjoyment), and the only intrinsic bad is pain (understood, in a broad sense, to encompass both physical pain and psychological suffering).
>There are several well-known problems that follow from hedonistic accounts of the good
>These problems stem from two questionable claims involved in hedonism. On the one hand, one can question that all forms of pleasure are intrinsically good, for it seems that how one obtains pleasure also adds to its value or disvalue. On the other hand, there appear to be many other things that we value as intrinsically good besides pleasure
>This is exemplified by the classic “experience machine” thought experiment (Nozick 1974, 42–45). This machine would provide us with a non-stop flow of pleasurable experiences if we were to be plugged into it instead of living our ‘real’ lives. The fact that we would not be willing to plug ourselves into it illustrates that there are other things we value in life besides pleasurable experiences
Ask yourself honestly. When some of you say you "give" your pets orgasms, are you doing them a service? Is it at all not possible that this is something they could not want, but through their nature or conditioning, are unable to get away from? There's already a disparity in power, I don't see why it's unreasonable to consider that you could be rationalizing and humanizing away the dog, all for your jollies. That's particularly a case of not respecting the dog, too.
Luke Cruz
What the fucked
Thomas Hernandez
I offer this as my rebuttal:
puffy dog vagina
Aaron Jenkins
Wow the fact that this thread has even lasted is a mystery to me. Zoophilia and anyone trying to rationalize it is actually retarded. But the amount of idiots even dignifying these threads with a response is almost just as pathetic. sage
Zachary Mitchell
>Sumner has defended a form of welfarism that “requires that a subject’s endorsement of the conditions of her life, or her experiences of them as satisfying or fulfilling, be authentic”
>which means that the subject has to be autonomous and properly informed. This authenticity condition allows Sumner to escape Nozick’s objection. However, Sumner appears to not merely consider pleasure as intrinsically valuable, but also autonomy, since for him it is of high importance to preserve “the authority of welfare subjects to determine for themselves which goods they will pursue in their lives”
>The value of autonomy appears to be intrinsic and not merely instrumental, for he does not simply present it as a tool to ensure enjoyable experiences, but appears to value it in itself
Zoophiles also tend to unconsciously try this as an argument. The animal may be in heat, and the zoophiles take advantage of that. It's not enough that there's some kind of autonomy, because it's not that a creature is properly informed about what is to happen. There's also the matter of its nature as a moral subject, it's vulnerabilities, and that
>the ethical implications that follow from moral subjecthood cannot be captured solely in terms of welfare
>his theory does not qualify as ‘welfarist’ in the sense in which we are using the term
>the ways in which members of a species can be harmed make them vulnerable in certain specific ways, and, in turn, shape the kinds of duties we might hold towards them
>we will argue that this specific kind of harm cannot be captured merely by saying that the individual is suffering
>our aim here is to criticise a less sophisticated form of welfarism, in which the sole criterion for determining the well-being of an individual is the presence or otherwise of pleasure and pain
>Welfarism, thus understood, is not very popular as an account of human well-being
So perish the thought of "rewarding" animals. They did not ask for a reward of that nature.
Robert Wood
>We consider that welfarism is problematic if we pretend it to account for all the components of a good life, and, conversely, it is also problematic if we pretend it to account for all the possible harms that can affect an individual
>We are going to defend the claim that if one is a moral subject, then one can be subjected to a specific type of harm that (1) cannot obtain when one lacks moral subjecthood, and (2) cannot be fully explained in terms of welfare
>In order to defend this idea, we will use the example of a sow that we shall call Sustitia
Hello, Sustitia.
>First, we will offer a characterisation of Sustitia as an individual who is being harmed in a way that can be fully captured from a welfarist perspective. We shall call her Sustitia 1. Then, we will turn Sustitia into a moral subject, for the purpose of illustrating how welfarism cannot give a proper account of the ethical implications in this case. We shall call this second individual Sustitia 2.
And wouldn't you know it, they're both sows.
>Both Sustitia 1 and Sustitia 2 may resemble actual sows in certain respects, but it is very important to bear in mind that they are not meant to be real, or even realistic, sows, but rather two hypothetical constructs that we will use to illustrate our point.
Remember that.
At this point, however, I'll end up either paraphrasing or directly quoting the sources. Like I said would happen. And frankly, as I type this, I realize that the only people who will get something from this, are those who actively make the decision to read through the sources.
Nicholas Foster
by saging you just bumped the thread...
Levi Peterson
So here's what's going on with Sustitia 1. She's a simple being, her needs are limited to nutrition, rest, and reproduction. But she's sentient. She has an ability to experience physical sensations, experience pleasure, and experience pain. The pain and pleasure have subjective qualities of "feeling like something" to her. Pain is bad, pleasure is good. Sustitia then can experience affective states of being. Moods can feel good and bad. She can then also experience moods that come from objects, things that will make her experience moods like happiness or sadness. There are things that will distress her, or make her angry, and so on and so forth. In summary, Sustitita 1 will experience things in the world as good or bad, depending on how they make her feel. That's it.
>Sustitia 1 lives on a farm. Since the moment she reached adulthood, she has been kept in a stall that is too small for her to move around freely. All she can do is stand up and lie down, which causes her stress and pain. To facilitate cleaning, the floor of her stall is slatted, which causes her claws to overgrow, resulting in painful leg and claw injuries, shoulder lesions, and teat damage. The food she is fed is low in fibre, leading to painful stomach ulcers. She is forced to urinate and defecate in the same place where she sleeps, which she finds extremely unpleasant. A couple of times per year, she is made pregnant through artificial insemination. Her human handlers are not always properly trained, and the insemination is often painful and scary. When she is about to give birth, she is put into a farrowing crate, where she will be kept for four weeks in a row, and which restricts her movements even further, causing even more distress and pain. Once the piglets are weaned, she is put back in her stall, and the cycle begins again.
>As we can see, Sustitia1 is often in pain or distressed, and this psychological and physical suffering is a direct result of the way in which her human owners keep her.
Nathaniel Sanchez
>As things stand in this example, it seems reasonable to say that Sustitia 1 is being harmed by her owners, given that these husbandry conditions lead her to suffer almost continuously. The harm that Sustitia1 undergoes is by no means negligible. On the contrary, a plausible case could be made to argue that a fundamental right of Sustitia 1- the right not to be subjected to extensive and unnecessary suffering—is being violated. We do not want to lessen the importance of this harm. However, we do want to highlight that this is a harm that can be fully accounted for in terms that refer solely to Sustitia 1’s subjective experience. Of course, one could argue that, on account of being a farm animal, Sustitia 1 is also being harmed because she has had her freedom taken away from her, or because she is being commodified or exploited. These are fair points, but we want to bracket the harm that comes from her overall life experience and focus on the specific harm that results directly from her husbandry conditions: the inadequate flooring, the restricted space, and so on. The latter is a harm that takes the form of a subjective negative experience. Because these conditions make her suffer, and her suffering is a bad thing, Sustitia 1 is harmed by them. If Sustitia 1 were to find these living conditions pleasant or enjoyable, then they wouldn’t harm her (although, of course, it might still be wrong to exploit her). The harm that Sustitia 1 undergoes as a direct result of her husbandry conditions consists of her suffering. It is a welfare problem.
Things to take away from this: why in the world do you not see why the slave dynamic poses so many problems for this argument of sexing your pets? How can you go there, and still miss what this is suggesting? There are specific parts of what makes it so bad, that some of you zoophiles very nearly address, only to miss them completely as you mention all these things. Like
>castration castration castration castration
Dylan Roberts
>Our characterisation of Sustitia 1 has not provided us with any reason to think that she is a moral subject, for she has been described as a fairly simple individual with entirely self-centred interests
So let's go examine a moral subject, then.
>Now, let’s turn Sustitia into a moral subject. Accordingly, we shall now refer to her as Sustitia 2. What makes her different from Sustitia 1 is that Sustitia 2 does not just suffer due to her own life conditions, she is also concerned with the well-being of the sows and piglets in her environment. She is surrounded by sows who are kept in the same conditions as her, and who are thus displaying continuous signs of distress. She also has to witness piglets undergoing tail-docking, teeth-clipping, and castration without anaesthesia or analgesia
In a nutshell, it's even more clear that Sustitia 2's welfare is being violated. She can have empathy for the well-being of all the pigs in the environment, and she's being prevented from acting on that moral motivation fully. She satisfies conditions required to be considered a moral subject; she has a sensitivity to the good-making or bad-making features of a situation, where the sensitivity can be normatively determined, and where it's grounded in the operations of something reliable. Sustitita 2 suffers. But Sustitia 2 suffers in a way that only a moral subject like Sustitita 2 can. In case this isn't clear, the suffering alone isn't just insufficient to establish that something is wrong. The suffering relies upon Sustitita 2's limited capacities. A sow can't help in this situation.
Funny, that. Because a pet can't help themselves either if their owner has roped them into sexual acts.
Logan Clark
>Nussbaum considers that, for each species, there exists a series of capabilities, made up of those things that members of that species are “able to do and to be”
>Needless to say, if we are thinking of highly complex species, such as our own, the list of capabilities is immense
>But out of all these capabilities, Nussbaum considers that each species has a set of “basic” capabilities, which are distinguished from the rest in that they can be “evaluated as both good and central”
>where “good” is understood as being intrinsically valuable, and “central” as being essential to the flourishing of members of that species as the sort of thing they are
>In the case of human beings, the basic capabilities include some that can be shared with many other species, like “[b]eing able to move freely from place to place,” and “[b]eing able to have good health,” but also further capabilities that are species-specific, like “[b]eing able to use one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression,” and “[b]eing able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life”
Already, this should provide a clear enough distinction between a pig and a human. Species-specific capabilities.
Lincoln Cruz
>Capabilities, then, are understood as those things one is able to do and to be. With this in mind, there are two ways we can characterise moral emotions in terms of capabilities, depending on whether we focus on what one is able to do because of them or what one is able to be thanks to them.
>we can also understand moral emotions as capabilities themselves, if we were to conceptualise them as primarily character traits, that is, as dispositions to feel and behave in certain ways
>Sympathy, for instance, can be understood as the capability to be sympathetic, that is, as a character trait that disposes one to feel distressed in the presence of others in distress and consequently engage in affiliative behaviour. Moral emotions can thus be understood as either grounding certain capabilities, or as capabilities themselves
Keeping up? Capabilities as character traits. Species-specific capabilities. Vulnerabilities. Autonomy. Moral subjects. Dog bowls. "Rewards".
Owen Scott
why
Henry Adams
>If moral emotions akin to sympathy are indeed basic capabilities, this means that the individuals who possess them are entitled to lead lives in which the exercise of these capabilities remains possible for them. We are now at a point where we can start to see the full dimension of the ethical problems implicit in the example of Sustitia 2. As we saw, whenever an animal is treated in a way that thwarts one (or several) of her basic capabilities, she is being harmed. There are two ways in which this thwarting can occur: (1) an animal can be precluded from the possibility of exercising her capability, or (2) she can have her capability taken away from her. Sustitia 2’s case would be an example of (1). Sustitia 2 still possesses sympathy, but she lacks the possibility of exercising it because of the existence of a physical barrier. Despite not being able to do it, she is still capable of caring for others. She still has her capability, but cannot exercise it.
Like how a bull or a dog cannot say no. Or, rather, like how a dog is ultimately dependent and otherwise trusting of a human being to magically reveal food whenever certain actions are performed, not being able to know further.
>An example of (2) might occur if Sustitia 2 became habituated to the frequent presence of distress cues in her surroundings, to the point where she no longer felt concerned about her conspecifics. She would have become incapable of caring for others. She would have lost her capability. In both cases, Sustitia 2 is being harmed by whoever has placed her in this situation, because her capability has been thwarted as a result.
There you go. And suddenly, it's hard to argue that you're not violating your pets because they don't respond to the violation in a way that you say would make you stop. It's fine to sex your pets? Are you sure?
Isaiah Thompson
>One of the advantages of objective theories like the capabilities approach is that they are permeable to the fact that what one is happy or content with is largely shaped by the environment one develops in. Thus, the fact that one is happy most of the time does not necessarily mean that one’s life is going well, since one’s happiness can be the result of a process of indoctrination or manipulation, or simply a coping mechanism. This was eloquently put by Sen
Really read this one.
>A person who has had a life of misfortune, with very little opportunities, and rather little hope, may be more easily reconciled to deprivations than others reared in more fortunate and affluent circumstances. The metric of happiness may, therefore, distort the extent of deprivation, in a specific and biased way.
Again, are you treating your pets well?
>Likewise, in the case of animals, these coping mechanisms may develop and disguise the extent to which animals are harmed in a specific situation, which is one of the reasons why their suffering can be an unreliable measure of their well-being. If Sustitia 2 eventually became habituated to the suffering of her conspecifics and no longer felt distressed when she perceived it, a welfarist would have to conclude that she is no longer being harmed. In fact, from a welfarist perspective, we would have to say that Sustitia 2 has been benefitted due to this habituation process, insofar as it has led her to stop suffering.
No one would want to say that, but of course, it could be said. It could be argued.
>Anyone who considers sympathy and caringness to be intrinsically valuable character traits must conclude that the welfarist analysis of this example is misguided
And that's very much a common consideration for most people. No wonder there's some cognitive dissonance from zoophiles every now and again.
Logan Howard
>some human practices may destroy the moral capabilities of animals indirectly, as an unintended side effect of a treatment that has other aims. For example, there have been reports of rats becoming habituated to distress cues from conspecifics after repeated exposure to them during pro-sociality experiments
So about that dog fucking... It's almost plasible to say that the majority of the outspoken, recent zoophiles are a collection of sexually nonsadistic rapists. In a nutshell, that would mean that they are driven by sexual fantasies and urges, but the sexual arousal is innapropriate in its nature. In other words, they are driven by fetish. It also includes beliefs that are supportive of offence, alongside feelings of inadequacy regarding masculinity and sex. Now, when you aggressively declare that "your girl" enjoys what you do to them, and they can't actually communicate that in any meaningful way to any other human being, and you routinely get defensive whenever someone questions those activities...
Well? It's bad enough considering the above. The insult to injury is personifying something that clearly lacks the personifications in of itself. And the operative word is still consent. Keep in mind that dogs are truly as functional as toddlers. You're giving something that can reason as far as a 3-year old, an orgasm. This thing doesn't even posses the ability to leave you. It depends on the owner- like a toddler would. Without any input or guidance, it will eat anything it finds, shit anywhere it goes, and likely not know where to find edible food. It may even eat something hazardous to its health, or get trapped behind furniture, and more. It's predominately driven by instinct, because the defining characteristic of a human baby is the fact that they have to grow several sized before they are a fully functional adult. Dogs do not need to do this. Many behaviors for them are instinctual, present from birth. Human babies are mostly blank slates and brain stem.
Julian Watson
What the zoophile should hang on, is the fact that the majority of behavior from dogs is instinctual. That means they don't usually choose, they're just otherwise compelled. Chasing one's tail is just a tic. What does that say about consent between a non-human animal, and a human being?
I can't imagine it's the same level of consent, if it's consent at all. The dog cannot communicate, unambiguously, that you're raping it. It either tolerates the act, or barks and growls and bites. And it will do those things for a number of reasons, sometimes for no good reason at all. Habits form. Harm isn't necessarily connected to well-being. There's no level of complexity in a bark, that there is in any anatomically modern human's language. There are so many reasons why the argument of consenting pets does not add up.
Camden Rodriguez
The dog can't negotiate itself out of the relationship, the human is in full control of that. Why? Because the human being, as the owner, as the more complex being, has to be the one to interpret everything. Dogs don't say what is. The human does. It has the power in the relationship. Too much power. And dogs are not sufficiently complex enough, in terms of cognition, to inform and be informed about consent. This means an unambiguous communication of what is going to happen. If you want someone to shove that delicious looking slice of pie into your mouth, but I shove dry cornmeal into your mouth, you'll complain. You wanted food, but you didn't want that food. The level of information wasn't communicated. You didn't want someone to shove dry cornmeal into your mouth, even though technically, someone shoved food into your mouth. Dogs don't do this. There's no beforehand discussion of what they want to happen. It's a response. It's very base, primal, rudimentary.
Try asking a dog to sign a legal document. It won't understand. And it will probably bite you if you forcibly try to get it to hold a pen as a result. But it wants treats. And if the treat happens to be thrown directly at the dog, it will probably react poorly, but then eat the treat. But they got the treat, right? Right?
Henry Lopez
yes
not cognitive dissonance
not fetish but lifestyle
humans are also driven by instinct.
jews did 9/11
Cooper Myers
The lack of knowledge, the disparity in power, has hopefully been conveyed. It doesn't make it okay. Your pets aren't Sustitita 1, I don't think any of you would think so. The logic I presented, before if not now, contained more than just the dog's inability to consent. The conclusion doesn't just arise because the dog can't consent. It arises for additional reasons, reasons that are far reaching enough to not only seem to make the case that pet ownership would be immoral...
But so would the act of a human having sex with dogs be immoral. Without question, because it's not only that the issues with consent are limited strictly to sex with humans. Mind you, the goal was to argue that zoophiles having sex with their dogs is no good. It might inevitably come to be that the argument also makes a case for pet ownership being immoral, but that both exemplifies the level at which the argument addresses sex with dogs, and the consequence of trying to argue that sex with dogs must be something. Remember the talk of properly bracketing what causes suffering. But without a doubt, I have seen some zoophiles claim that because the dog can't meaningfully deal with that aspect, it's a-okay.
Thomas Jenkins
And if not but recently, zoophiles have conceded that acts of sex from adults are almost always harmful to the child, regardless of the child's supposed expression of consent, at least due to psychological variables such as underdevelopment. And there is so much to say about informed consent, psychological development, and behavior. I've said many times that zoophiles tend to make really terrible rationalizations. The claim that all zoophiles are sick isn't entirely baseless. It's not about their sexuality. That's neither here nor there. It's about their mentality, their cognition. Zoophiles are often demonstrably different from the average person. The issue of them being evil isn't something that can actually come from any sort of objective reason, so it's redundant to say that it's baseless. In fact, it perfectly highlights the main issue with zoophiles: they don't think like a hivemind. One will throw out one piece of rationale, and another will contradict them immediately. So if some must die on such a hill: if their "evilness" isn't an issue, then neither are the ethics an issue- and this means that there can be no arguing for whether or not something is okay, from either side. The entirety of their constant justification and rationalization for it being okay for them to sex their pets melts away, and they cannot invoke concepts like "love" or "equality" or anything that has to do with, well-being. I have already had the pleasure of going through arguments where that was the situation.
David Garcia
The zoophiles eventually decided that it was time to run away from the argument after the constraints came into play- after conceding a lot of unfortunate things, and routinely being unable to commit themselves to the mentality where there is no moral framework, period. That alone highlights the systemic issues that plague their rank and file attempts at defending what they do. They cannot give up the moral framework, so they cannot brush aside the numerous logical objections to the plurality of their justifications and anecdotes, so they cannot in good faith say that they aren't raping their pets. I could just point to individuals on the internet, whom you could easily find and analyze for yourself. There's overlap in the furry community, when it comes to zoophiles. It's a no-brainer. Not only are there documented cases at this point, but if you claim to have spent any amount of time on the internet, it shouldn't be such a far cry to acknowledge that, out of 1000 people who subscribe to a non-normative ideology, a non-negligible amount of them aren't "normal". Pedophilia tends to also have overlap with zoophiles, more often than not. I don't think I have to explain to you why, because you should already have that implicit sense of this dialogue over the taboo.
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.
Nicholas Morris
I only had to re-hash what I've typed before to address the current "audience", because it's not worth anyone's time to restructure the entire argument and it's supplementary components, with every single piece of minutia... than what was previously addressed, and what beliefs are currently held. But in any case, user put it well.
>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
Easton Green
A millionaire fucking a bikini model is also a power disparity. Is that wrong?
Human children are not animal adults.
not rape
Dogs do what they like, and are sexually mature enough to hump each other as adults. But they are slaves.
Alexander Martinez
>they'll let you lick away to keep their dog bowl full
How do you know the dog like food? you may be imposing it to the dog he can't decide by itself.
This is called Reductio ad absurdum btw look it up.
And for your text... biased some parts has 12 years old logic behind others are not that bad but the amount of logic fallacies make it pretty much useless, maybe try sleeping a good 8 hours and rewrite it again.
Jonathan Bailey
Yeah, exactly. How do u know ur dog wants to eat????!?!?!? But u cant knwo!!
How do u kno they dont want to be tortured!??!?!?! U are deciding for them without their consent to not torture them!!!
Fucking dumbass arguments seriously.
Jonathan Lopez
Normies only have fallacy arguments against bestiality basically.
Juan Reyes
>A millionaire fucking a bikini model is also a power disparity
That's an indisputably unequivocal example. You've read nothing in all of the things that were fired into this thread. Am I surprised? No. Because that's typically what happens.
>Human children are not animal adults
It didn't say that human children are adult animals. Do you want to alter that sentence?
>Dogs do what they like
It's as if you couldn't care less about the plight of Sustitia. And despite everything, you are stuck in the mud with that slave allegory. Still.
>How do you know the dog like food
Because the dog dies if it gets no food. The dog tries to eat things that are not food when it is starving. It is harmed when it eats something it's not supposed to eat, because it's only acting according to its behavior. How do I know the dog is starving? Are you really going to ask that question next?
Did you even read the things I bothered to type out? Did Sustitia's mournful wails also go unnoticed here?
>reductio ad absurdum
>some parts have 12 years old logic
Demonstrate that. Type out the amount of logical fallacies, demonstrate them, correct them.
Colton Jenkins
I'll read through it more properly later, but one of the issues is that you're relying on a very specific perception of an ethical framework that most people won't operate under. So you're not going to convince a lot of people on that alone.
There's a few good arguments and a few bad arguments in there, I could probably get you some empirical evidence against a couple non-philosophical ones
John Adams
>you're relying on a very specific perception of an ethical framework that most people won't operate under
user.
user.
user.
user, answer truthfully, now! Do you hurt your animals when you make love to them? Yes or no only.
Cooper Sanchez
How do you know the dog prefers castration or surgical removal of their sex organs at a young age, over sex when they're sexually mature?
Easton Wright
Because you don't read, because this is already a disingenuous question to begin with, and because you have an obsession with castration.
Matthew Rodriguez
If you frame it that way then my answer is No. I take contention with the term hurt though.
Samuel Hernandez
I'd say the average pet owner has that obsession, not me.
Nathaniel Adams
You shouldn't take contention with the term hurt. Some people kill animals after having their way with them, and could care less about that. Why would you take contention with the term "hurt".
In any case, since your answer is no, can you tell me why the answer is no?
Andrew Lee
I don't care about your arguments, but what makes me angry is how I've watched your ego inflate bigger and bigger the more obsessed with these threads you get. Even if I wanted to take you seriously and argue against you, I couldn't just because of how smug you are while you constantly use stilted speech to feel smart. I'm not sure you even care about the topic. I think you just want to be righteous.
Ryder Peterson
It's a term that can mean various things. Does it necessarily produce a negative subjective experience? No. But you can produce arguments that disregards or values other things than the subjective experience. Which is why you will find arguments often relying on terms such as sexual integrity, power differentials, free will, coercion, dignity etc. I'm not currently convinced of any such arguments.
Justin Lewis
You seem to fit this one well. These justifications come not only from animal rights advocates, but also from individuals who defend the use of animals in other contexts. Accordingly, attempts to justify, maintain, or propose bestiality proscriptions create some strange bedfellows. Individuals who have never asked whether an animal consents to what else happens to her suddenly trot out the animal’s inability to consent as a reason to prohibit bestiality. Others, who use animals as means for myriad purposes, baldly assert that bestiality wrongly uses animals as means.
Anthony Myers
I know, classic, sex is different but I'll at least say it. Consent is not generally a precondition to the myriad uses humans make of nonhuman animals. If consent is generally unnecessary, then it is difficult to see why a different rule should govern sexual uses of animals.
Luke Reyes
Still for some reason you justify your double standards. If the animal’s dignity and sentience require not just consideration of the animal’s consent to sexual acts, but an affirmative legal proscription of bestiality, why would these same interests not require evaluation of all animal uses? After all, we do not typically allow sentient beings to consent to murder, torture, slavery, or peonage. Thus, if consistently applied, restricting animal use based on lack of consent would render animal slaughter, routine farming practices, zoos, and even ritual sacrifice illegal.
Andrew Davis
Nonhuman animals are routinely subjected to violations of their sexual autonomy. Companion animals are spayed and neutered, without any consideration of the animal’s consent. Farmers routinely castrate pigs, bulls, and other animals. Female cows are artificially inseminated and kept constantly pregnant after being placed on “rape racks.” And when they are lactating, the cows’ milk is wrenched from their udders. Even stallions may have their penises restricted in order to prevent them from ejaculating. And so, justifying laws against bestiality as necessary to protect the animal’s sexual autonomy also falters on an irrational inconsistency. The law does not value an animal’s sexual autonomy as such, and attempting to justify bestiality laws on the basis that sex is different does not solve the irrationality.
Caleb Martinez
Essentially, the first rationale attempts to use bestiality as a proxy for the propensity to commit violent sexual crimes against humans. Therefore, proscribing bestiality is necessary because anyone who commits bestial acts “poses a definitive risk” of cruelty “not just to animals, but to fellow human beings.” For our purposes, this reasoning is irrational; one of this Article’s factual premises is that, in some instances, sex between humans and animals can occur without cruelty or demonstrable harm to the animal. Indeed, if we assume that the human seeks to emphasize “positive reactions from the animal, such as approaching the person, cuddling, rubbing against the person, not trying to move away, and displaying sexual excitement,” then bestiality might encourage understanding sexual partners as emotive beings, not objects. But even if we relax this Article’s factual predicates for a moment, the argument is still inconsistent and irrational. First, it depends upon a simultaneous “flattening of the human-animal distinction,” since it posits that “those likely to abuse animals are equally likely to abuse humans,” while defending a “strict distinction between the two,” since humans and animals should not have sex. Perhaps it is true that violence toward animals may lead to violence toward humans, but then compassion toward animals would seem to lead to compassion toward humans; this is a reason to avoid any violent or coercive use of animals at all, a view routinely described as “radical.”
Connor Nguyen
What may underlie society’s desire to prohibit bestiality is the notion that there is something deeply troubling with sexual relationships of unequal power. These relationships are infused with the possibility of coercion. That is not to say, however, that unequal power alone can be the definitive criterion. Interactions between adults and children, patients and their caretakers, the intellectually disabled and persons of superior intelligence, generally have unequal power and thus are potentially coercive.
Lucas Gomez
Shifting the focus of the inquiry to the intent of the human who is violating the animal’s sexual autonomy does not solve the problem either. Generally speaking, a human being who touches an animal in a sexual manner might intend to: (1) respond to the animal’s medical needs; (2) perform acts related to animal husbandry in an agricultural setting; (3) satisfy the human’s sexual urges, irrespective of the animal’s urges; or (4) satisfy the expressed sexual desires of the human and the nonhuman animal. As currently articulated, bestiality law certainly reaches acts falling into the third and fourth categories. Indeed, for some, acts falling into the third or fourth categories invoke a greater sense of moral outrage—more akin to pedophilia than to the rape of an adult. But for the animal, the disagreeability of a sexual act does not depend on the human’s mental state. And because sexual desire is a concomitant of sexual autonomy, once we concede that animals communicate their pain and pleasure through their behavior, an attempt to rationalize bestiality laws by focusing on animal sexual autonomy and human intent actually makes acts falling into the fourth category the strongest instance for permitting interspecies sex.
Sebastian Stewart
Noah White
If non-consensual acts that harm animals (such as slaughter, hunting, spaying/neutering, and artificial insemination) are legal, then it logically follows that sex with an animal must also be legal, yet it isn't,. If the well-being of animals and animal cruelty were really a concern for lawmakers, they would ban slaughter and hunting.
Asher Rivera
its impossible to argue against a creationist tier mindset... the conclusion is already reached before the arguments are formulated.
John Thompson
Another major point on this one is that adult, sexually mature animals are not the equivalent of human children, as much as people may associate them as such. Often they will site studies that say - for example - dogs have the mentality of 2 - 5 years old kids, and therefore they are like kids, so bestiality is the same as molesting/raping kids. These studies are based on the animals' ability to understand HUMAN language and math, and solve puzzles and negotiate obstacles. But animals are NOT human, and have their own levels of intelligence, wisdom and comprehension within their species. Unfortunately, humans have this bad habit of comparing everything to ourselves, and labelling them in human terms based on studies and observations with human parameters. IMO, saying adult animals are intellectually the same as human children, and therefore unaware of their sexuality and don't have the mental resources to make decisions around sexuality is TOTAL BULLSHIT.
Jack Fisher
Are you talking about me, or who I'm arguing with?
Connor Watson
It's a human feature, don't believe that you're above it. If your preferences lines up with your ethical system, be wary.
Ayden Gutierrez
Okay, stop. Stop. Stop. You don't care about the arguments.
But you're angry about this perception of ego, on Cred Forums, in a thread where the greatest high-brow comment from a zoophile was
>dude wat
You're issue, is with this air of smugness I dress everything up in, and it's for that sole reason that you can't take me seriously
>or
argue everything that's practically an entire other source of information? Really? This is all just stilted speech? You think I would waste my time like on something like this, if I didn't have the tiniest shred of care for it? Like this?
Like, this?
>you just want to be righteous
O, irony. Where are my castration tools, I've misplaced them...
Thomas Nelson
>It's a term that can mean various things
It specifically means "hurt the dog while having sex with it". Sex is a physical act. It's very straightforwards and unambiguous. Very. It necessarily produces a negative subjective experience. It's called pain. It hurts. It's been discussed above. There is so much backing up the remainder of things you've downplayed.
Okay, but that doesn't answer why you don't hurt your dog when making love to it. There has to be a reason why you would say so. Proscription of bestiality shouldn't create strange bedfellows- because of the mountain of things I have brought to this malapropic table. Considerations have been made for whether an animal consents to what else happens to her. If not by the usual suspects, by the material brought into this thread. Which is why I am so nonplussed about seeing it being glossed over. The majority of things you're saying... it's up there. Even earlier, the number of things animals do or don't consent to, what choices are made for them, and more. The mention of their inability to consent isn't something out of left field. It's not unsubstantiated, it's not hypocritical. If animals are a means to an end, what is the conclusion you are forced to make, user?
Do you want to make that conclusion?
>Consent is not generally a precondition to the myriad uses humans make of nonhuman animals
So you are then only affirming that you don't need consent. Do you see how that works? This is the pitfall, this is the trap that comes with this. You must realize what you have to abandon if you say this.
Christian Clark
>If the animal’s dignity and sentience require not just consideration of the animal’s consent to sexual acts
>but an affirmative legal proscription of bestiality
That was legitimately never argued, user. Not once. Where do you see legality being used in an effort to justify not having sex with animals? Where? Point me to it.
>we do not typically allow sentient beings to consent to murder, torture, slavery, or peonage
It's not a matter of us not letting them. They cannot. It has been said why it might be that they cannot. It has been said to death why it might be that they cannot.
>Nonhuman animals are routinely subjected to violations of their sexual autonomy
I know, right? Isn't that interesting? It's like I've addressed it in the above. Hell, I've even talked about it at length before. I guess all that reading and typing goes out the window! Oh, and look. Castration. Again. There definitely wasn't a sentence about a sentient sow being artificially inseminated, and how that harms her well-being, but with way more details and context that can't be truncated into a sentence like this.
>rape racks
Oh, they call them "rape racks", do they.
This strawman you're using... why? Why, why, why. Why, user. Why? I won't even humor it anymore, because what you said to me was that what I've given operates on a very specific perception of an ethical framework that most people won't operate under. And for the love of God, I asked you to answer yes, or no. I give you the tiniest inch to explain the choice of saying "no", to help illustrate the matter of you directly using the ethical framework of hedonic welfare, and what do you do? Explode into a strawman.
Hello? You are concerned with the welfare of the animals! This is the ethical framework! Dignity! Harm, you...
Andrew Hill
I like paw patrol but that's fucken weird
Adam Fisher
I'm well aware of the problem with the consent argument. I believe they can consent, and I am a vegan. I do not force anything on an animal without consent, whether that be in the form of death, or sex.
Leo Cruz