Quake3World

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:09 am**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3aRebr75fg

Do you think it should be unlawful to believe an animal can really consent to such behavior?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:45 am**

Why are you reposting this crap?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:26 am**

rofl @ the comments

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:11 am**

AmIdYfReAk wrote:rofl @ the comments

I guess the good thing about dating a horse is that you're guaranteed a ride home at the end of the night...

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:30 am**

this kind of thing really turns my stomach.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:45 am**

dzjepp wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3aRebr75fg

Do you think it should be unlawful to believe an animal can really consent to such behavior?

For serious? No. Do you think it should be illegal to believe anything?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:19 pm**

WE PREFER THE TERM INTER-SPECIES EROTICA, THANK YOU.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:36 pm**

that was an awesome movie... Kevin hasent lost his touch.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:54 pm**

dzjepp wrote:
Do you think it should be unlawful to believe an animal can really consent to such behavior?

looks fake, but even if it weren't, i don't see too much wrong with their behaviour.

No creature's being harmed here.

And yes, I strongly believe an animal can consent to such behaviour, especially when it's the one doing the fucking.

You don't need verbal articulation to understand certain things. When you interact with a dog or cat, say by providing it food, you don't need to hear it speak to understand that it's enjoying itself.

You'll find out very fast if the situation is non consensual.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:50 pm**

Juls is right.

Also, lol, we fucking kill them and eat their flesh.....

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:18 pm**

iambowelfish wrote:
dzjepp wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3aRebr75fg

Do you think it should be unlawful to believe an animal can really consent to such behavior?
For serious? No. Do you think it should be illegal to believe anything?

rofl. do you think that type of thing doesn't happen in real life?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:27 pm**

i suspect that our reaction to bestiality is fundamentally no different from historical reactions to h0m0sexuality.

It just was considered downright perverse, and irreducibly wrong.

But, assuming it was possible to regulate bestiality such that no creature was harmed, and diseases were not spread, I don't see a compelling reason to make it illegal.

Some people just need a big horse cock up their arses to get the most out of life. Let em be!

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:36 pm**

theoneandonly wrote:NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

the only right answer is that you should be strung up in a public venue if you ever want to have sex with an animal.

[xeno]Julios wrote:i suspect that our reaction to bestiality is fundamentally no different from historical reactions to h0m0sexuality.

It just was considered downright perverse, and irreducibly wrong.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:42 pm**

The humans were the fuckees. Sounds like consent to me.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:33 pm**

[xeno]Julios wrote:
....Some people just need a big horse cock up their arses to get the most out of life. Let em be!

thats gonna end up in someones sig I just know it :icon26:

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:35 pm**

theoneandonly wrote:how about nobody sticks gets penetrated/sticks their pensises into anything that's not human. Is that too old fashioned for you?

You're against the use of condoms?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:37 pm**

theoneandonly wrote:how about nobody sticks gets penetrated/sticks their pensises into anything that's not human. Is that too old fashioned for you?

how is this different from:

"how about nobody sticks/gets penetrated into/by anything that's not of the opposite sex"

You're invoking taboo without any reasoning.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:38 pm**

Foo wrote:
theoneandonly wrote:how about nobody sticks gets penetrated/sticks their pensises into anything that's not human. Is that too old fashioned for you?
You're against the use of condoms?

Beats never being in a situation where you need a condom, eh fool?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:47 pm**

BRING BACK SIGS MURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:59 pm**

sigs it?

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:02 pm**

playing devil's advocate here, but you still havent answered his question. replace animals with "men" and its no different than southern christians' logic :icon32:

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:05 pm**

ah, now you tap into the mental state and/or mental inferiority of said animals. which indeed is a valid point, imo

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:32 pm**

theoneandonly wrote: The fact is, anyone who wants to have sex with an animal has something very wrong happening in their head and I do not what to interact with a person like that. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUCKING ANIMALS...don't spin this into close-mindedness of a new era like the 70s and 80s for faggots.

I don't give a shit about fags, I'm not talking about them.

edit: sexual liberation can go too far. Fucking and getting fucked by animals is too far. Anyone sexually attracted to animals should be gutted.

you may be on to something, but you still need to articulate a clear argument why bestiality should be outlawed.

You have to say why it's going too far.

Comparing it to pedophilia is different - there are very good arguments to be made that the child involved in the relationship will incur psychological damage.

I don't think that is the case with a fully grown male stallion or a frisky dolphin.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:35 pm**

AIDS should be reason enough, as well as violating the sacred line that distinguishes between a homosapien and a horse-jerking neanderthal.

Posted: **Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:40 pm**

Quake3World

zoophiles have a good ol chit chat

zoophiles have a good ol chit chat

Re: zoophiles have a good ol chit chat

Re: zoophiles have a good ol chit chat

Re: zoophiles have a good ol chit chat

Re: zoophiles have a good ol chit chat