This thread is now about Furries, for some reason. Formerly: "So. Anonymous."

[Vene]

I'm completely ok with jokes about furries - damn I've met some people you'd be hard-pressed not to burst out laughing at.  And/or run screaming from.

Here's a hint, you're currently the butt of a joke.

[trippinprincezz13]

I was curious to see what tone the conversation would take, especially after bringing up something as taboo as zoophilia.  I must admit I'd expected somewhat better from people claiming to be subverting the dominant paradigm.  *shrug*  I'm not exactly stunned though.

Oh yes! How conformist of me to think that animal fucking is disgusting! Well my eyes are fucking open now! Thank god! Now I must work to being completely enlightened and learn to accept baby and kiddie fuckers too! It's just love anyway right? The baby didn't say "no" so it must mean it consents! Of course! Look at how fucking open-minded I am!

luckily, I don't care what a furry thinks of me.

especially one that hangs out with dogfuckers.

Have to agree with ECH.

While maybe not the lowest of the low, animal fuckers are way the fuck down there to me. Anyone who condones it is almost as sick as they are. Furries? Blech.

What's so bad about fucking animals?  Animals fuck animals.  Humans are animals with distended brain cases.
At the very least, explain how fucking an animal is worse than eating a hamburger.

How about it's just fucking disgusting? Can't find something to fuck within your own species? Not to steal on Nigel's statements, but why isn't the squirrel outside fucking that bird over there? Why doesn't my cat try to have sex with my boyfriend's brother's dog when they bring it over? They're playing with each other, so obviously they should want to fuck each other too, right? Oh fuck! My cat doesn't want to have sex with something outside of his own species. I better call the vet, there must be something wrong with him! I don't buy into the whole "consent" bullshit either. They don't say "no" and even if they just sit there, that says nothing. A child may not say no and just sit there while an adult molests them too.

And, well hamburgers are delicious. Not as good as a big juicy steak though. And uh, oh yea, eating food for sustinance is not having sex. We're all just animals? Well, wolves eat deer. Why aren't there massive deer and wolf orgies going on in the woods? Why aren't the bears hanging out in the rivers and streams jerking off with a fish on it's dick? They're all just animals! There must be something wrong with them!

[Elder Iptuous]

Now... fucking a hamburger.....Rule 34 Go!

[Ari]

nsfw tags are NO FUN, yet a necessity.

NSFW - http://www.morethings.com/fan/south_park/photo_gallery/satanic-blood-orgy-108.jpg

[P3nT4gR4m]

There's a reason most of us a biologically designed to find bestiality disgusting. Contrary to popular belief, tho, it's got fuck all to do with natures moral code. Just for the record nature has no moral code - deal with it.

The reason most of us aren't attracted to animals is because it's fucking pointless. There will be no offspring and, for that reason, we have absolutely no business fucking them. Fucking was never designed to be a recreational activity, unlike snooker or pac man. Fucking is a biological imperative that most of us are instinctively compelled to indulge in. The compulsion is facilitated by making the experience pleasurable to us. This is accomplished by our bodies releasing a bunch of endorphins which get us high at the point of orgasm. Because of this mechanism the average human, or animal for that matter, upon maturing, will become something of a fuck junkie, addicted to the orgasm in much the same way as we're addicted to food and oxygen.

Strangely enough a percentage that's arguably approaching the majority of us, think it's okay to fuck a member of the same sex which, in the natural scheme of things, is equally fucking pointless. But, for the homosexual brigade is no less pleasurable - orgasm is still achieved, endorphins are still released.

I'm honestly (for once in my life) not trying to start a flame war here but I am aware I'm treading on thin ice so I guess I should make it very clear that I don't have a moral objection to gay sex. Would be kind of difficult for me since I'm pretty much completely devoid of morality but I do find it amusing that a lot of people who find pointless sex okay in sense, find it reprehensible in another.

I just happen to be a heterosexual male. I think I was born that way. While I couldn't give a flying fuck if the guy next door prefers big gay cowboy sex and I'd still chat away to him when we passed in the street (Hell if he had a case of lager in his hand I'd invite him in to watch the grand prix) I, personally feel kind of icky when I imagine having sex with him, as I'm sure he would if he were to picture having sex with a woman - that's just the way we're wired. However the thought of having sex with an animal doesn't make me feel any more or less icky it's all just icky, not-my-bag kinda stuff. I suspect this is because of the moral component I mentioned earlier.

Food for thought?

[Elder Iptuous]

^THAT^

[Vene]

P3nT, that's why appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.  It's also why it's moronic to say

What's so bad about fucking animals?  Animals fuck animals.  Humans are animals with distended brain cases.
At the very least, explain how fucking an animal is worse than eating a hamburger.

as is

How about it's just fucking disgusting? Can't find something to fuck within your own species? Not to steal on Nigel's statements, but why isn't the squirrel outside fucking that bird over there? Why doesn't my cat try to have sex with my boyfriend's brother's dog when they bring it over? They're playing with each other, so obviously they should want to fuck each other too, right? Oh fuck! My cat doesn't want to have sex with something outside of his own species. I better call the vet, there must be something wrong with him!

[Payne]

There's a reason most of us a biologically designed to find bestiality disgusting. Contrary to popular belief, tho, it's got fuck all to do with natures moral code. Just for the record nature has no moral code - deal with it.

The reason most of us aren't attracted to animals is because it's fucking pointless. There will be no offspring and, for that reason, we have absolutely no business fucking them. Fucking was never designed to be a recreational activity, unlike snooker or pac man. Fucking is a biological imperative that most of us are instinctively compelled to indulge in. The compulsion is facilitated by making the experience pleasurable to us. This is accomplished by our bodies releasing a bunch of endorphins which get us high at the point of orgasm. Because of this mechanism the average human, or animal for that matter, upon maturing, will become something of a fuck junkie, addicted to the orgasm in much the same way as we're addicted to food and oxygen.

Strangely enough a percentage that's arguably approaching the majority of us, think it's okay to fuck a member of the same sex which, in the natural scheme of things, is equally fucking pointless. But, for the homosexual brigade is no less pleasurable - orgasm is still achieved, endorphins are still released.

I'm honestly (for once in my life) not trying to start a flame war here but I am aware I'm treading on thin ice so I guess I should make it very clear that I don't have a moral objection to gay sex. Would be kind of difficult for me since I'm pretty much completely devoid of morality but I do find it amusing that a lot of people who find pointless sex okay in sense, find it reprehensible in another.

I just happen to be a heterosexual male. I think I was born that way. While I couldn't give a flying fuck if the guy next door prefers big gay cowboy sex and I'd still chat away to him when we passed in the street (Hell if he had a case of lager in his hand I'd invite him in to watch the grand prix) I, personally feel kind of icky when I imagine having sex with him, as I'm sure he would if he were to picture having sex with a woman - that's just the way we're wired. However the thought of having sex with an animal doesn't make me feel any more or less icky it's all just icky, not-my-bag kinda stuff. I suspect this is because of the moral component I mentioned earlier.

Food for thought?

I agree with a good deal of this, but feel the need to tack a moral point on the end regardless.

Homo-secks is perfectly fine, if biologically or evolutionarily "unnatural", because it is like hetreo-secks in that a certain level of consent is implied in any healthy sexual relationship.

Bestiality and the like is morally unjustified on those terms because of the distinct impossibility of consent.

My problem with animal fuckers comes not even from that, it comes from the bizarre ways they try to imply that consent, largely by anthropomorphising the animal.

Another problem I find with it is in the worldview of such people. I once watched a documentary on the subject, and one line from a horse fucker will stick with me to the grave, "I walked into the stable and saw it's pussy, and I thought 'Womans Pussy [which he had told us he found impossible to attain, but not undesirable], horses pussy.... PUSSY!'". This retardedly naive view of the world that tries to find the similarities in things and completely ignore even the most obvious differences is abhorrent to me.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Whilst I agree with the consent issue to a degree I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell if the horse was in some way distressed by it.

If it is then it's pretty cruel but I can imagine the horse either not really bothering one way or the other or perhaps even enjoying the stimulation.

[Payne]

Whilst I agree with the consent issue to a degree I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell if the horse was in some way distressed by it.

If it is then it's pretty cruel but I can imagine the horse either not really bothering one way or the other or perhaps even enjoying the stimulation.

It isn't about cruelty or otherwise to the animal in question.

It's about the mindset and thought processes of the person doing it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

what about stroking a cat then?

You do realise that when you stroke a cat and you get near the back and it's tail goes up that this is a totally sexual response right? Cat sex itself is actually very unpleasurable to the cat. That's why, to get his little barbed cock in there, the male cat has to grab the female in his teeth and hang on for grim death.

So is foreplay between a human and a non-consenting cat wrong?

[Payne]

what about stroking a cat then?

You do realise that when you stroke a cat and you get near the back and it's tail goes up that this is a totally sexual response right? Cat sex itself is actually very unpleasurable to the cat. That's why, to get his little barbed cock in there, the male cat has to grab the female in his teeth and hang on for grim death.

So is foreplay between a human and a non-consenting cat wrong?

It's about the mindest of the person doing it, P3nT.

A person stroking their cat and getting a sexual response from it (when they really are just stroking the cat) is not the same as sexing an animal and justifying it through the most tortuous and bizarre logic.

[Elder Iptuous]

impossibility of consent?
what about when the animal is the initiator?
or even when the animal is the 'giver' rather than the receiver?

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's degrees of scale. When a human strokes a cat they are using the animal in a way that nature never intended. Or what about using a sheepdog to herd sheep?

We use animals all the time, for our own personal amusement but it's considered morally acceptable if we look after them and feed them and shit and don't cause them distress. Shagging them, however, is a big taboo. Even if the conditions you shag them in conform to acceptable standards of animal husbandry.

[Payne]

We're supposed to know better, Iptuous.

Do we not lock up pedophiles for sexxing kiddies, even when the child can be shown to have been the "initiator"?

Not suggesting that we need to lock up beast fuckers, but the principle is largely the same.