Maymay:
Jag vill höra dina åsikter om de två sakerna.
Det är inte fel att VARA pedofil (person som är sexuellt attraherad till barn). Naturligtvis. Eftersom ens sexualitet inte är ett val. Pedofili är precis som vilken annan sexuell fetishism som helst. Biologi bryr sig inte om er moraliska kränkthet.
Skillnaden är att pedofiliskt samlag ser många som fel eftersom de anser att barnet inte har tillräcklig förståelse för de långsiktiga konsekvenserna av sexuella handlingar som finns i samhället.
Jag anser därför att att knulla barn är fel, men att helt enkelt ha den sexuella attraktionen och hålla det till sig själv, det är inget fel med det.
Med samlag mellan människor och djur är jag mycket mer skonsam, dock. Jag anser att att ha samlag med djur (inte alla djur men vissa som till exempel hästar och getter) är inte moraliskt fel.
Varför skulle det vara det? Här är några argument och mina motargument. De är på engelska, för jag orkar inte översätta.
>Doesn’t aren’t sapient enough to allow consent, a human is. Just because a dog humps you does not mean has given any form of consent.
Yes, it has. The dog is choosing to hump. It’s the dog’s own choice. That’s consent on the dog’s part.
>And a child touching your crotch means it has consent you to do what you please?
An adult-minor sexual relationship has long-term ramifications in our society. A dog-human sexual relationship does not have long-term ramifications. That is the crucial difference.
>When I was 11 years old I wanted to move out and get a job from my family because I thought it would be easy, my parents obviously prevented me and now that I’m an adult I realised how stupid that idea would have been. It’s a stretch but that’s why a child can’t consent , it can’t see the bigger picture or comprehend it. Same goes for a dog, a dog thinks in the moment and thinks the same way an animal would when excited.
No, the difference is that sexual acts between a dog and a human do not have long-term ramifications. The dog doesn't care. The human, however, will likely care when they grow up.
>My dog fucking humps the bedclothes, it doesn’t have the foresight or wisdom to understand the situation.
Yes, you're proving my point. Dogs don't know what they're doing, so what's the problem with fucking them? They're not going to care. They're going to like it, even.
>To the dog yes, but to the humans surrounding it definitely fucking not. I and many others would be disgusted at the thought of a friend I know was fucking his dog avidly. As would any of my kids or family members. If you were to baby sit a dog and then have sex with them, that would be catastrophic for human relationships.
Look, one should not have to care what other people think... That is quite a pathetic way to live... Constantly restrained by what your relatives might think. People should just become more accepting instead.
>Most people would agree that fucking a dog is not a good conduct for a human. There go, Immoral.
Nah, I don't derive morality from what most people agree on.
>Your entire argument is based off of 'it humped me, so it has given me permission to mount it'.
Maybe mounting it is a little too... assertive...? The human can be penetrated by the dog, you know. I know at least that can be consensual.
>"Yes, you're proving my point. A little girl don't know what they're doing, so what's the problem with fucking them? They're not going to care. They're going to like it, even."
Garbage analogy, because adult-minor sexual acts have long-term ramifications in the society which we live in, making it morally wrong to engage in sexual acts with children. They're going to care when they get older.
>Humans view their animals as a child, a family member, I don't know about you but I don't fuck my child or family.
That is not an argument. Just because that's not what you do, doesn't mean other people should not do it (to specify, fucking dogs is what I'm talking about. Not fucking children).
>Bottom line, a human should not be desperate enough to have sex with an animal, go do it to a pillow or something if you're that pent up.
I think you should stop being so judgmental.
>Beastiality IS morally wrong. A dog isn’t consenting, it does not know the meaning of consent.
A dog can consent. If a dog starts fucking you, that's consent on the dog's part.
>Dogs will also lick antifreeze. They don't have the capacity to consent to sex with humans
Fornication between a dog and a human does not have long-term ramifications; licking antifreeze does. That's the crucial difference.
>It's rape and it traumatizes the animal holy shit
It's not rape, as I've explained.
The dog starts fucking.
Fornication between a dog and a human does not have long-term ramifications.
Therefore, the dog consented.
But the second part of thy comment... now, we're getting into the meat of the discussion. Does it traumatize the animal? I highly doubt it. Do you have any evidence of thy claim?
>So a drink girl who's passed out has consented because she's not saying no?
No, because she is not reciprocating the act. Additionally, people have generally agreed not to fuck drunk people (at least women) if you're not drunk yourself, because they may regret it.
>What about a drink guy? Men get erections even if they don't want sex.
Erections are not reciprocation of a sexual act. You're making my argument for me.
>So it's okay to rape them so long as they don't actually say no?
No, rape is not OK.
>Dogs can not give consent.
As I've explained, they can give consent.
1. The dog starts fucking.
2. Fornication between a dog and a human does not have long-term ramifications.
Therefore, the dog consented.
>They'll drink poison and die as well do you think they WANT to drink poison and die?
As I've explained before, drinking poison has long-term ramifications which the dog does not know of. Therefore, people say that the dog did not consent to drinking the poison.
>It's abusing the dog which has long lasting effects
I don't know of this. Do you have any evidence?
>you literally have to teach them to fuck humans and force them how to do it.
Well, I'm not sure whether or not that's true. Does one really have to force them? I don't think so... Dogs have similar sexual anatomy and behavior to humans. Additionally, dogs are quite intelligent. Maybe you could show them how?
>They're not giving consent just because they hump your leg
Well, that in itself is definitely a consensual act on the dog's part.
>
https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/humping-why-do-dogs-do-itUm, your link proves my point... LOL. The humping is intrinsic to dogs.
>They can not SAY yes.
It doesn't matter whether or not they can SAY yes.
In fact, plenty of humans fuck without giving verbal consent. Of course, using language makes the consent more clear, but plenty of humans rely on body language.
Dogs consent through reciprocating the act. Do you know what consent is? It is permission for something to happen. They are giving their permission by reciprocating.
>And dogs will consent to eating poison too.
Eating poison has long-term ramifications for the dog; fornication with a human does not have long-term ramifications for the dog. That is the crucial difference.
>Dogs hump a chair, it doesn't mean they want sex with the chair it just means they don't know how to jerk off.
Well, why don't you just let them penetrate a vagina, then?
