Unbelievable But Not Unexpected

[Magic Man]

This is how I reason when I'm drunk and then hit on the head with a hammer.

:biglaugh:

What are you talking about? Are you trying to imply that there's something wrong with my reasoning? If so, I'd love for you to show what you think is wrong with it. And be careful that you're not just showing your disgust for the idea of bestiality (as that is all you've done so far).

 

[Autodidact]

Hmm...some guy I never heard of wrote a letter to a group I never heard of advocating a rather bizarre fringe position. And why should we care?

 

[Halcyon]

This is how I reason when I'm drunk and then hit on the head with a hammer.

:biglaugh:

OK, its an odd topic of conversation, but he still has a point. If a woman bends over and a horse chooses to mount her its hardly animal cruelty, the horse isn't forced to do anything. It'd be like accusing the owner of a Jack Russell that humps people's legs of being immoral.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

OK, its an odd topic of conversation, but he still has a point. If a woman bends over and a horse chooses to mount her its hardly animal cruelty, the horse isn't forced to do anything. It'd be like accusing the owner of a Jack Russell that humps people's legs of being immoral.

Reminds me of a line from the song "It Ain't Nothing To Me" by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers:
I got a dog on my leg
(It ain't nothin' to me)
I'm walking on eggs
(It ain't nothin' to me)

Missionaries walkin' backwards
Touch 'em and they bleed
It might mean somethin' to you
But it ain't nothin' to me.

 

[oldcajun]

Take a look at what a "gay" activist is backing now. Should we expect any less.

Bestiality 'OK if animal approves'

Do we really want to allow this kind of diversity?

National Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Bestiality Necrophilia Sadomasochism History Month

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Do we really want to allow this kind of diversity?

National Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Bestiality Necrophilia Sadomasochism History Month

Are you really so ignorant to think that this type of behaviour is, in any way, directly linked to or limited to homosexuality?

I would hope that you are smart enough to understand that bestiality is practiced by heterosexuals. Necrophilia and sadomasochism are right in that wheelhouse as well.

Tell me that you are smarter than your posts in this thread.

Please tell me that.

 

[Charity]

Ted Bundy was a perfect example, raped, killed women, engaged in necrophilia but wasn't ever a mention of being homosexual........So just because you are a member of a certain group doesn't determine guilt just because a bigot chooses to jump to conclusions......
On the other hand Jeffrey Dahmer was a homosexual, engaged in necrophilia but I never heard of him having sex with an animal, of course he came fairly close as being classified as one himself, by his actions of cannibalism.... Could this indicate that all homosexuals therefore be called cannibals? ... Geeeez

 

[Sunstone]

Ted Bundy was a perfect example, raped, killed women, engaged in necrophilia but wasn't ever a mention of being homosexual........So just because you are a member of a certain group doesn't determine guilt just because a bigot chooses to jump to conclusions......
On the other hand Jeffrey Dahmer was a homosexual, engaged in necrophilia but I never heard of him having sex with an animal, of course he came fairly close as being classified as one himself, by his actions of cannibalism....

Excellent! I'm sorry to say I've run out of frubals. :sad4:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, its an odd topic of conversation, but he still has a point. If a woman bends over and a horse chooses to mount her its hardly animal cruelty, the horse isn't forced to do anything. It'd be like accusing the owner of a Jack Russell that humps people's legs of being immoral.

Question: say you're on a red-eye flight. While you're sleeping, you develop an erection. The person in the seat beside you (who you don't know) takes advantage of it and, while still sleeping, you "choose" to participate. Have you been sexually assaulted?

 

[Magic Man]

Question: say you're on a red-eye flight. While you're sleeping, you develop an erection. The person in the seat beside you (who you don't know) takes advantage of it and, while still sleeping, you "choose" to participate. Have you been sexually assaulted?

I don't really see the similarity. You're asleep, you can't really make decisions. If I took the action of mounting that person, I would not, by any means, be sexually assaulted. If the other person did all of the work while I was asleep the whole time, then it could be considered a form of sexual assault. (I just don't like the word "assault" in that case, but I digress...)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't really see the similarity. You're asleep, you can't really make decisions.

IOW, the ability to perform the act does not necessarily imply the capacity to consent to the act, or the propriety of performing it.

I think this is similar to the scenario you described: just because you can get a horse excited doesn't mean you should take advantage of that fact.

If I took the action of mounting that person, I would not, by any means, be sexually assaulted. If the other person did all of the work while I was asleep the whole time, then it could be considered a form of sexual assault. (I just don't like the word "assault" in that case, but I digress...)

Why? It'd meet the definition under the Criminal Code where I am at least.

 

[Halcyon]

Those scenarios aren't really comparable penguin, if a horse is conscious and chooses to mount a presenting human female it does so of its own free will - you can't compare that with an unconscious person with an erection.

By trying to compare them it suggests that any and all actions undertaken by a horse are not of its choice, that everything it does is the result of something/someone else taking advantage of it, which I think you'll agree is ludicrous.

 

[Autodidact]

May I just make the meta-remark that is one of the oddest internet discussions I have ever seen?

 

[Magic Man]

IOW, the ability to perform the act does not necessarily imply the capacity to consent to the act, or the propriety of performing it.

I think this is similar to the scenario you described: just because you can get a horse excited doesn't mean you should take advantage of that fact.

The point is that, if I take the initiative, and mount someone or something, then that is me giving consent. If a horse does the same, it is the horse giving consent. You're right that the ability does not imply the capacity to consent to the act, but the conscious, non-coerced decision to perform the act does imply that. Here you seem to be saying that no act a horse performs is its decision. I disagree with that.

The key point that I think you're overlooking is the fact that the horse is doing the action of its on will. The person is not threatening it or anything. The horse chooses to mount the person.

Why? It'd meet the definition under the Criminal Code where I am at least.

You mean of "assault"? I am not disagreeing with that, but "assault" seems like a harsh term for the act you describe on the plane. I agree that it is wrong, and it even qualifies as "assault", but it just doesn't seem to fit how I think of that word.

 

[Magic Man]

May I just make the meta-remark that is one of the oddest internet discussions I have ever seen?

:takeabow:

 

[Father Heathen]

This calls for a link to that interview: Enjoy!

(warning: doesn't show anything of course, but they do speak in rather explicit detail.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those scenarios aren't really comparable penguin, if a horse is conscious and chooses to mount a presenting human female it does so of its own free will - you can't compare that with an unconscious person with an erection.

Sure you can. Capacity is present in both situations; heck, choice and action may be present in both... but consent is not necessarily present in either.

By trying to compare them it suggests that any and all actions undertaken by a horse are not of its choice, that everything it does is the result of something/someone else taking advantage of it, which I think you'll agree is ludicrous.

No, I'm saying that regardless of whatever decisions makes, a horse lacks the capacity to consent in a way that makes it okay for a person to have sex with it.

The point is that, if I take the initiative, and mount someone or something, then that is me giving consent. If a horse does the same, it is the horse giving consent. You're right that the ability does not imply the capacity to consent to the act, but the conscious, non-coerced decision to perform the act does imply that. Here you seem to be saying that no act a horse performs is its decision. I disagree with that.

No, I'm saying that a conscious, non-coerced decision to perform an action only implies consent when the person or thing making the decision is capable of informed, intelligent consent.

The key point that I think you're overlooking is the fact that the horse is doing the action of its on will. The person is not threatening it or anything. The horse chooses to mount the person.

For real consent to be present, the horse would have to be reasonably aware of the potential consequences of its actions and voluntarily accept them. To establish that the horse consents, first you have to establish that it has the intelligence and self-awareness to do all that.

You mean of "assault"? I am not disagreeing with that, but "assault" seems like a harsh term for the act you describe on the plane. I agree that it is wrong, and it even qualifies as "assault", but it just doesn't seem to fit how I think of that word.

I don't know; I'd consider it assault myself, but I just took the term from the law.

 

[Mister Emu]

No, I'm saying that a conscious, non-coerced decision to perform an action only implies consent when the person or thing making the decision is capable of informed, intelligent consent.

Agreed...

 

[Halcyon]

Sure you can. Capacity is present in both situations; heck, choice and action may be present in both... but consent is not necessarily present in either.

No, because one is aware of what is happening in the real world, the other is unconscious.

No, I'm saying that regardless of whatever decisions makes, a horse lacks the capacity to consent in a way that makes it okay for a person to have sex with it.

That doesn't make any sense. If a male horse mounts anything, be it a female horse, a fake mare for collecting stud semen or a female of another species it gives its "consent" by initiating the act.

No, I'm saying that a conscious, non-coerced decision to perform an action only implies consent when the person or thing making the decision is capable of informed, intelligent consent.

If a horse decides to mount something it does so because it wants to, you can't coerce a horse to want to have sex.

For real consent to be present, the horse would have to be reasonably aware of the potential consequences of its actions and voluntarily accept them. To establish that the horse consents, first you have to establish that it has the intelligence and self-awareness to do all that.

A horse is never aware of the consequences of its actions, whether it mount a mare, fake mare, human, great dane or fence post. It is however aware that it wants to mount those things, otherwise it would not do it.

 

[Halcyon]

Whatever you say, allowing a male animal to mount you is totally different to forcing penetrative sex on an animal.
Both are really weird, but one is carrying out an act against another entity's possible wishes, and the other is simply allowing an animal to do stuff to you.