PAGAN 9JA:


umm i think you need to read that article again. The picture was of 2 female dogs. Animals never engage in penetr.ative s.ex. they are not serious about it. it is usually done as signs of aggression or s.exual/emotional outbursts. but they never actually copulate.

I think you are the one who needs to read that article again, didn't you read the section on bottlenose dolphins? And how do you know they are not serious about it? Homosexual penguin couples raise chicks together, that is as serious as it can get man.

PAGAN 9JA:
to all those who talk about killing animals and poultry for food:

there is a proper "natural" way of doing it as ive explained before. any other way is abnormal and wrong and this includes the methods of mass culling of animals in small cages, that we see and use today.

this world is not perfect. we live in a world where wrongs take place on an everyday basis and this issue is not exempt.

So your only problem is with the method of killing, not the act itself?

Logicboy03: It seems the op doesnt know the meaning of CONSENT

A child cannot give consent to se.x- Pedophile se.x is illegal.
An animal can not give consent to se.x- Bestiality illegal.


Two women can give consent to have se.x. with each other(There was no disgust to acceptance for you then, abi?)
Two men can give consent to have se.x with each other



I dont know why people can be really oblivious to simple facts.

the op asked a question. Do scientist seek animal consent before use in laboratory experiment? Plz answer

PAGAN 9JA:


a child and an animal are similar in some respects (e.g., they are living things) and are different in others. lets separate the similarities from the differences/

it is not normal to use animals as lab rats, kill them unnnecessairly, cage them,etc.

this is termed today as "änimal abuse"

consent = permission.

whose consent? Whose permision? The animal permision

wiegraf:

You forget you're an animal? That's almost theist thinking right there. There's nothing special about us other than, of course, consciousness/sentience.

Animals have rights, as the apex predators we can $hit/dictate all over them, but they do more or else. Even within a pack there'll be the alpha, who can do x and y, the betas that can do y and z, etc.

With time, most of the world will be vegetarian or something similar, believe it or not. We're headed that way already, with the posters above already dreading the future. Let's hope technology will provide us something delish as a substitute. Already in the UK, I know of people visiting jails for say abusing their dogs. Actually, even in the US, cock/dog fights could land you in prison, not just fines.

Anyways, take your post



Note, slaves were considered 'animals' as well.

Now, a slave could at least consciously consent, not so much with most animals. And, even if they could, out of fear or whatever just about any slave would have consented. Replace slave with children sef and you could still make similar arguments. Luckily, we treat our kids with a lot more love and respect, but that is for selfish reasons (spreading our DNA).

There are groups out there trying to get equal rights to the other primates, elephants, any species that seems to be on the verge of sentience actually.

First let me make this clear: I was being sarcastic when I said animals do not have rights. I meant they should have rights, we say they do, but we do not treat them like they do. I also want you to understand my case. I am not advocating bestiality, I just want us to consider it. How can we say it is wrong yet we do all these other horrible things to them? You have made a case(albeit incomplete) for that and let me highlight my next point. How can we say bestiality(and other cases of paraphilia) is wrong yet we agree to homosexuality? Again you have put the issue of consent and have not agreed to my own definition of it. Now this is something I will still like to discuss but let me ask my third question: I have seen cases of humans having romantic relationships with objects, and by objects I mean cars, walls, what is your take on that?

Logicboy03:



I didnt say that bestiality is wrong because of societal norms or laws.

The point I made was clear; something not being illegal doesnt mean it is supported by the society

And so because something is not supported by society it becomes wrong? Since when did you become a conformist? What is really wrong in kissing in public?

inurmind:

Actually it's not.

Okay, cool!!!...how I love it when I make wrong guesses...

inurmind:
I'll assume you think what is not right is wrong.

Not really...I won't want us to look at it strictly from the perspective of right and wrong...these tend to be rather subjective.

inurmind:
You see a lion sniffing the anus of an antelope is just unusual behaviour, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

Rather inappropriate behaviour cause it's against nature's laws I guess...yes, I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with a lion taking a peek at the buttocks of a goat but having s*x with this goat is another matter entirely.

The lion strictly speaking cannot be held liable even when he decides to have s*x with this poor antelope but the truth is that animals act based on instinct (to a large extent) and not necessarily on a well defined thought-process...

Humans on the other hand have a well defined way of assessing proper and improper conduct in line with the laws of nature...we know when something is natural and when it is beyond the realm of nature.

Now consider a situation where a goat comes into some individual's matrimonial home, and decides to 'colonise' the individual's wife (or daughter) for the night...will it be out of place for that individual to cry blue murder and put the 'bagger' to the butchers knife?

If it would be proper for this individual to react in this way when the converse is the case, why then should we consider bestiality when the animal being 'raped' is technically some other animals babe?

inurmind:
I do agree that there are unwritten universal laws, but these laws do not have to apply to every Dickson and Harry, and they don't.

But actually, these 'laws' apply to all as long as it is the 'normal' case...I assume we are looking at the 'normal' case here.

inurmind:
Because you see something weird, strange, new, even disgusting [which is an extremely subjective term], does not mean it is wrong.

I agree!

inurmind:
Anyway, I was just being sarcastic when I said animals had no rights, but by rights I meant privileges they should enjoy, not principles to follow.

I understand but don't you think that one of such privileges is for them to enjoy some form of protection from their well advanced 'brothers'?

inurmind:
And lest I forget, you are the real boss, I'm just a troublemaking lad.

You mean "puny brained" orthodox idiiot? Lol!!!

mumumugu: the op asked a question. Do scientist seek animal consent before use in laboratory experiment? Plz answer

Consent applies to se.x

Logicboy03:



Strawman..........


I believe, bowing or nodding and greeting are enough.......

Why should I lie down like a slave?

My bro. you do not become a slave. when you grow old, your grandchildren will bow to you in respect of you. It doesnt make you a slave.

no one bows to slaves when they get old.

inurmind:

I think you are the one who needs to read that article again, didn't you read the section on bottlenose dolphins? And how do you know they are not serious about it? Homosexual penguin couples raise chicks together, that is as serious as it can get man.

i did not read about dolphins. show me the part again.

cmon how do you know they are homosexual. animals do tend to confuse their sentiments and priorities. they are not involved in penetrative copulation.

inurmind:

So your only problem is with the method of killing, not the act itself?

yes thats right. the right method puts to rest any unnecessary killings.

mumumugu: the op asked a question. Do scientist seek animal consent before use in laboratory experiment? Plz answer

animal testing is a wrong act. this is why you have animal rights activists propagating against it today.

mumumugu: whose consent? Whose permision? The animal permision

what are you talking about i was asked the meaning of consent, thats all.

inurmind:

And so because something is not supported by society it becomes wrong? Since when did you become a conformist? What is really wrong in kissing in public?

Strawmanned and missing by point!

Bestiality is wrong on the count of consent. Shikena...

I never said kissing in public is wrong.


I was only making the point that something not being illegal does not entail support. Shikena

striktlymi:

Okay, cool!!!...how I love it when I make wrong guesses...


Not really...I won't want us to look at it strictly from the perspective of right and wrong...these tend to be rather subjective.

Inasmuch as I agree with you, the problem is that your God looks at cases from the point of right and wrong, take the ten commandments for example. So why shouldn't you?

Rather inappropriate behaviour cause it's against nature's laws I guess...yes, I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with a lion taking a peek at the buttocks of a goat but having s*x with this goat is another matter entirely.

The lion strictly speaking cannot be held liable even when he decides to have s*x with this [b]poor[/b]antelope but the truth is that animals act based on instinct (to a large extent) and not necessarily on a well defined thought-process...

Your use of the word "poor" suggests that the antelope will be raped. That is surely wrong. But what of if the antelope consents to it? (Yeah, this is getting really weird )

Humans on the other hand have a well defined way of assessing proper and improper conduct in line with the laws of nature...we know when something is natural and when it is beyond the realm of nature.

Now consider a situation where a goat comes into some individual's matrimonial home, and decides to 'colonise' the individual's wife (or daughter) for the night...will it be out of place for that individual to cry blue murder and put the 'bagger' to the butchers knife?

In your own words, animals do not have a well defined thoght process, so there is no way a goat is going do that, except he has an evil spirit in him or something. But let's assume a goat, or more realistically, a chimpanzee attempts to have sexual intercourse with a lady. The main issue here remains consent. If she consents to it, then no probs, if not, then the man may be justified in inflicting harm upon the animal. Although to be honest with you, when you think of the animal not having a well defined thought process, it kind of makes you deliberate on whether the animal deserves death or not. But then it hits you, animals, [b]as well as humans[b] are put to death when they commit heinous acts. In that regard, there is enough justification for killing the animal.

If it would be proper for this individual to react in this way when the converse is the case, why then should we consider bestiality when the animal being 'raped' is technically some other animals babe.

I don't think the animal having some faraway babe might be a good enough justification sir.

But actually, these 'laws' apply to all as long as it is the 'normal' case...I assume we are looking at the 'normal' case here.

My friend the point of this thread is to examine and consider abnormal cases, leave normality to the christian threads

I agree!


[quote]I understand but don't you think that one of such privileges is for them to enjoy some form of protection from their well advanced 'brothers'?

Well shouldn't that protection extend to freedom from murder, false imprisonment, assault and the like?

You mean "puny brained" orthodox idiiot? Lol!!!

No o, you da boss.

inurmind: Inasmuch as I agree with you, the problem is that your God looks at cases from the point of right and wrong, take the ten commandments for example. So why shouldn't you?

Like I said before that view is subjective...

inurmind: Your use of the word "poor" suggests that the antelope will be Molested. That is surely wrong. But what of if the antelope consents to it? (Yeah, this is getting really weird )

You know the antelope will NEVER consent...getting near to a lion is bad enough let alone playing the bedroom game with one...

inurmind: In your own words, animals do not have a well defined thoght process, so there is no way a goat is going do that, except he has an evil spirit in him or something. But let's assume a goat, or more realistically, a chimpanzee attempts to have intimate intercourse with a lady. The main issue here remains consent. If she consents to it, then no probs, if not, then the man may be justified in inflicting harm upon the animal. Although to be honest with you, when you think of the animal not having a well defined thought process, it kind of makes you deliberate on whether the animal deserves death or not. But then it hits you, animals, [b]as well as humans[b] are put to death when they commit heinous acts. In that regard, there is enough justification for killing the animal.

The bold really puts an end to the discussion cause there you have it: bestiality is not appropriate.

inurmind: I don't think the animal having some faraway babe might be a good enough justification sir.

You mistake my point here...if it bestiality is not appropriate when the tables are turned then it should not be considered when humans are the main drivers.

inurmind: My friend the point of this thread is to examine and consider abnormal cases, leave normality to the christian threads

You mistake my meaning here...'normal' in terms of individuals who are in their right senses e.g sane humans as against mentally challenged individuals who really cannot be held liable for their actions. In order words humans that are rational...

inurmind: Well shouldn't that protection extend to freedom from murder, false imprisonment, assault and the like?

It should but again there will be exceptions to the rule in line with what Pagan 9ja mentioned earlier on how the 'killing' should be done and the dignity that every creature is entitled to.

PAGAN 9JA:


i did not read about dolphins. show me the part again.

No problem:

Bottlenose dolphins

See also: Animal sexual behavior#Bottlenose dolphins and Bottlenose dolphin#Life historyDolphins of several species engage in homosexual acts, though it is best studied in the bottlenose dolphins.[1] Sexual encounters between females take the shape of "beak-genital propulsion", where one female inserts her beak in the genital opening of the other while swimming gently forward.[71] Between males, homosexual behaviour includes rubbing of genitals against each other, which sometimes leads to the males swimming belly to belly,inserting the penis in the others genital slit and sometimes anus.[72]Janet Mann, Georgetown University professor of biology and psychology, argues that the strong personal behavior among male dolphin calves is about bond formation and benefits the species in an evolutionary context.[73] She cites studies showing that these dolphins later in life as adults are in a sense bisexual, and the male bonds forged earlier in life work together for protection as well as locating females to reproduce with. Confrontations between flocks of bottlenose dolphins and the related species Atlantic spotted dolphin will sometimes lead to cross-species homosexual behaviour between the males rather than combat.[74]

PAGAN 9JA:
cmon how do you know they are homosexual. animals do tend to confuse their sentiments and priorities. they are not involved in penetrative copulation.

Really? Please elaborate.

@striktlymi, forgive me for my tiny errors, wanted to do things sharp sharp.
Will have to continue this discussion tomorrow, have something very important doing. Goodnight!

inurmind: @striktlymi, forgive me for my tiny errors, wanted to do things sharp sharp.
Will have to continue this discussion tomorrow, have something very important doing. Goodnight!

No p bros...

Lovely night rest!

inurmind:

First let me make this clear: I was being sarcastic when I said animals do not have rights. I meant they should have rights, we say they do, but we do not treat them like they do. I also want you to understand my case. I am not advocating bestiality, I just want us to consider it. How can we say it is wrong yet we do all these other horrible things to them? You have made a case(albeit incomplete) for that and let me highlight my next point.

Then instead of compounding the problem, ie their lack of rights, we should be trying to fix it, no?

This is a simple two wrongs don't make a right imo. Hypocritical? Yes. But we have to start from somewhere. These changes are generational, as are all issues that usually concern rights.

inurmind: How can we say bestiality(and other cases of paraphilia) is wrong yet we agree to homosexuality?

Homosexuality between two consenting adults clearly has no victims. It's nobody else's business, in any form whatsoever.

inurmind:
Again you have put the issue of consent and have not agreed to my own definition of it. Now this is something I will still like to discuss but let me ask my third question: I have seen cases of humans having romantic relationships with objects, and by objects I mean cars, walls, what is your take on that?

How is it anyone else's problem? Clearly no one is having his rights impinged on.

With animals, they're a responsibility. We treat them like $hit, true, but it shouldn't be so. As for the issue of consent, think of one of the reasons we so vehemently condemn pe.dos, even if a kid 'consented' s/he was in a situation that was way over their head. The adult is usually (and rightly so) deemed a predator in these cases, as the adult usually has all the cards, manipulates, etc. Now, animals are even dumber than kids, no?

Btw, this is just my view. I'm not exactly selling something here, but I can see the case for outlawing bestiality as having merit, unlike a lot of the other stuff religious want outlawed for ridiculously foolish reasons.

striktlymi:

Like I said before that view is subjective...



You know the antelope will NEVER consent...getting near to a lion is bad enough let alone playing the bedroom game with one...

Okay how about a lion and a tiger? Again, the main issue being consent.

The bold really puts an end to the discussion cause there you have it: bestiality is not appropriate.

Forgive this pinky of a troublemaker, but I still cannot see how.

You mistake my point here...if it bestiality is not appropriate when the tables are turned then it should not be considered when humans are the main drivers.

I understood what you said, but remember, I didn't say it wasn't appropriate.

You mistake my meaning here...'normal' in terms of individuals who are in their right senses e.g sane humans as against mentally challenged individuals who really cannot be held liable for their actions. In order words humans that are rational...

This I now get.

It should but again there will be exceptions to the rule in line with what Pagan 9ja mentioned earlier on how the 'killing' should be done and the dignity that every creature is entitled to.

There can never be dignity in death my friend, at least not unless you consent to it. The lifespan of those animals are being shortened, it is still a form of abuse, no matter how painless the death may be. Every being wants to survive, it is a primary instinct to live, and depriving a being of his most precious asset is a most extreme case of abuse, we must not deny that.

^^^Will address this sweety, got to dash off to the Mainland...

wiegraf:

Then instead of compounding the problem, ie their lack of rights, we should be trying to fix it, no?

This is a simple two wrongs don't make a right imo. Hypocritical? Yes. But we have to start from somewhere. These changes are generational, as are all issues that usually concern rights.

Agreed, but what solution do you proffer? A reduction of the pain inflicted on the animal to the barest minimum, while we still get our meat ? or a total eradication of all practices in which animals suffer distress and pain?

striktlymi: ^^^Will address this sweety, got to dash off to the Mainland...

Giving me a taste of my own igbo abi?
No probs.

From_Guiriga: Interesting topic. If the animal has not consented to the act, then the act against the animal is wrong in my humble opinion.
This include killing them for consumption, using them for testing and so forth. I have yet to meet any living breathing animal that volunteered it's life for someone else' consumption. They usually run away.

If another person feels that there is nothing wrong with it then perhaps that person is free to do with the animal as they please, depending on culture, the country laws and regulations his conscience and so forth.

If I hunt for animals to kill for food then I cannot complain when the animal hunts me and kills me for food. A dead man cannot complain. You get the point thou.

That's my 2 cents.

Give thanks!

Thanks!

Dibangoking: yeah coz ur theory on population control is laughable.....check it out urself......homosexuality,bestiality et al should nw be accepted based on reduced reproduction

By the way dibangoking sorry for just answering this, infact I take God beg you, please no send evil spirit to me for night o.
Anyway that was not my only reason, I gave others in the original post. Rereading time man.

inurmind:

Giving me a taste of my own igbo abi?
No probs.

No o! O ti o!! I can't fit to do dat kain thing for you o...Lol!!!

Unconvincing rubbish! How is consent solicited from an animal? One can not make sense out of it, its chaotic. We can only rationalise this within a cultural context.

I believe in our times, we associate a healthy sexual relationship with consent frm all the parties participating, and we irrationally extend this to cases of bestiality. Though it is consistent with our perception, yet irrational. We treat animals like trash

Kay 17: Unconvincing rubbish! How is consent solicited from an animal? One can not make sense out of it, its chaotic. We can only rationalise this within a cultural context.

I believe in our times, we associate a healthy sexual relationship with consent frm all the parties participating, and we irrationally extend this to cases of bestiality. Though it is consistent with our perception, yet irrational. We treat animals like trash

Arent you a lawyer or something?

Anyways, in law, the difference between se.x and ra.pe is consent.
Under 18 year olds cant have se.x with older people because they are judged not to be mature enough to give consent.

Consent defines s.ex.

It makes so much sense and it is so rational.


Animals cant give consent

inurmind:


No problem:

I have seen those videos. THey actually just tend to rub their genitals or graze them nect to each other as a sign of dominance and aggression. This helps them secure more females by dominating other males. Another info of note is that this behaviour is observed only in closed areas/artificial enclosures where many dolphins are clubbed together and kept in a smaller space, than the open seas. For example, the largest study conducted in Shark Bay was with 120 dolphins kept together. Just imagine all the territorial fights breaking out over that small radius.
Another thing of note is that these are juveniles and this brings us to my 2nd statement of animals confusing their emotions and se.xual priorities. below:

Really? Please elaborate.

Let me give you an example. A dog once tried to hump my leg.
My leg is just a leg. But he felt perv.erted towards my left leg and kept trying to climb it. His thing was completely erect. Thats how. animals tend to get confused over their s.exual priorities.

^^
I think I covered what you said.