Moderator: Community Team
who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
So your position is that the government should not interfere in people's lives by outlawing bestiality?NomadPatriot wrote:who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
you obviously have zero clue what you are talking about
oh.. so you cannot answer the question...mrswdk wrote:So your position is that the government should not interfere in people's lives by outlawing bestiality?NomadPatriot wrote:who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
you obviously have zero clue what you are talking about
Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
What if you marry the animal?TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
Three possible responses to this statement. Pick one at random - lucky dip!TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
What if you marry a child?Dukasaur wrote:What if you marry the animal?TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
Saxi may be fluffy and white but he ain't a sheep.mrswdk wrote:Three possible responses to this statement. Pick one at random - lucky dip!TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.
Spoiler
What if the sheep bats its eyelids at you first?
Again only in the sense that outlawing rape or murder is regulating behavior. Which means it's more a protection of rights than regulating behavior.Spoiler
It's still regulating the human's behaviour.
Dairy farm a.i. is no more sexual assault than a physical at the doctor's office. Or, to keep it in the realm of animal husbandry, spaying or neutering your cat is aggravated battery.Spoiler
The government already permits dairy farmers to routinely sexually assault dairy cows in order to artificially inseminate them, so unless you're proposing the dairy industry be outlawed then there is no logical case for outlawing humans raping animals in some circumstances but not in others.
Under English law, forcefully penetrating someone with a foreign object is sexual assault. If you're arguing that having sex with an animal is rape, I'm arguing that sticking your hand up a cow's vagina is sexual assault*. And if you're not defining having sex with an animal as rape, I have no idea why you mentioned rape in the first place.TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Dairy farm a.i. is no more sexual assault than a physical at the doctor's office.
No, because she consented to the pap smear.TA1LGUNN3R wrote:So when a woman goes for a pap smear she's been raped?
Helping a pregnant animal to give birth (what you’re talking about) is one thing. A human impregnating a cow purely to get it to produce milk for human consumption (what I’m talking about) is completely different. Do you understand how those two situations are different?Sticking hands into animals, which must be done occasionally (like delivering a foal or something) is a procedure like any humdrum medical procedure.
Right, and farming them has no benefit to them either.But since raping them has no material benefit to them
Completely true. It’s like laws permitting alcohol but outlawing marijuana, they’re just a sop to a certain layer of society.You could get even more philosophical and say rape probably doesn't bother them either since that's an anthropomorphized view of an animal's psyche, so i guess anti-bestiality laws are more for a human's peace of mind than anything else.
neither of those is rape.. rape is defined as a sexual activity..mrswdk wrote:Just swap ‘cow’ for ‘human’ if you’re struggling to see the difference between the situations:
If a doctor touches a woman’s vagina while helping her give birth, is it rape?
If a farmer locks a woman in a shed and repeatedly sticks sperm in her vagina to make her pregnant, so that she’ll lactate and he can collect her breast milk, is it rape?
I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..mrswdk wrote:In the US it's defined as: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Hope you haven't been labouring under any false impressions all these years, NP. Maybe at least take a break from the Slutwalks until you've had a chance to do some research?
It's great that you've given such hard and detailed thought to the question of exactly where the line between 'rape' and 'not rape' is though.NomadPatriot wrote:I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..
loses debate over scenario she created..mrswdk wrote:Another classic back-and-forth with NP:
It's great that you've given such hard and detailed thought to the question of exactly where the line between 'rape' and 'not rape' is though.NomadPatriot wrote:I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..

not that I condone what you are saying. but if you are going down that road. wouldn't you put Bi-Sexuals above gays on that chart since they are attracted to both sexes...?The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.
It's because they are trying to infect children with AIDS. Mrswdk wrote about that in the homophobia thread which was then moved to the TrashCan and then deleted along with that forum.NomadPatriot wrote:not that I condone what you are saying. but if you are going down that road. wouldn't you put Bi-Sexuals above gays on that chart since they are attracted to both sexes...?The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.
but why would gays be more likely to be pedo's..?
are you saying little boys are more attractive then men..?
http://www.vdb.org/titles/tom-rubnitz-v ... y-dessertyI wanted to make things beautiful, funny and [HIV] positive
Exploiting a half-truth, at best.The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.