what proof is there that a horse doesn't enjoy being hummed by some girl?
if it doesn't harm the animal
how is it cruel?
how do you know it doesn't harm the animal?
yeah, fuck freedom of choice and all that
animals don't really have that
May we should restrict it to those bound for the abattoir?
freedom of choice?
you can keep them in captivity, slaughter them at will and eat their flesh. what free choice?
you're right.
it's been a long day.
soooooo
because another species eats them for survival and whatnot, you should be able to run around fucking them for no replication consequence too? K. Well how about fuck em and then eat em, that's how I roll, baby :D
we don't eat animals for survival
not for literal survival
but we don't eat them for no reason.
we eat them for selfish pleasure
we like how their cooked flesh tastes.
HAHA
Oh man, you got me - I'M the one that's sick :'D
It's called nature.
battery farms are well natural innit
A dominant species consuming another
is, yes.
See my contribution
to the thread about words that invalidate arguments. Cant be arsed? Dont invoke "nature", it doesnt work
^Knows
because theres different levels of consent
i.e. we can think about it, they just respond to urges, thus can be exploited.
amen jack///
Seriously everyone...leave animals alone. They are the only sacred things on the planet...they sure as hell beat humans.
YES EVERYONE
STOP PROMOTING BESTIALITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ALL DOING
_vikram is.
AND EVERYONE ELSE OBVIOUSLY
Not me.
I was just joking.
sacred?
so how come it's okay to enslave, kill and consume them?
It's not.
Can you outline all your views on this sort of thing tommorrow,when I can actually think straight
I don't eat meat.
I can't tell if this is a joke
so I'll assume it's a joke
it's not a joke
i don't approve of sexing your pet, but i don't think it should be a matter for the State
This was a joke
I deplore any sort of cruelty/interference with animals. I don't even kill flies.
no I was talking about Vikrams post
oh...
that boy is just nutty.
I would definately grate his lips off.
*fuck him
No.
Not if he hurts animals.
abhor*
Paedophilia as well, right?
hi!
Shush, Helene
This is a serious discussion.
oh shit
no
we don't barbecue children
Spit roast, right?
YOU SICKEN ME.
I can't believe this one nearly picked up the pace.
Shouldn't we all just turn in.
good idea
no this is hilarious!
it's actually being debated now wether it's against your civil liberties to not be allowed to go around fucking animals! Man I knew DiS was left, but jesus
What is invalid about this debate
Exactly. Nothing.
is this a joke?
I can't tell if everyone is just joking :'D
i'm just saying it's not an invalid debate
It's fucking animals!
We are actually weighing up the pros and cons of porking a pig, goat, cat, beaver, horse, salmon etc.
What sort of mental shags cats?!
Wow
That does not make the debate itself invalid by any means
It does to me.
There are just some things you can't apply cerebral intellect to. It's wrong...end of.
In the same way that the right and wrongs of Child Rape can't be discussed.
You wanna see my massive essay
in favour of paedophilia?
*erection
Whatever, DICKRAM
they obviously can
just because something is obviously emotionally abhorrent doesn't mean its rightness or wrongness cannot be assessed rationally.
In the case of child rape, performing a heavily psychologically damaging action on a vulnerable human.
et cetera, et cetera
This clearly isn't an appropriate forum to express those views.
what views?
The view that one can rationally explain the reasons why child rape is wrong? HOW HORRIBLE.
If only yes_ were here...
He'd have a witty reply.All I can come up with is "Hey bumbler,grow up"
yes_ was about as witty as a toothless pisser cackling into a Frosties box.
"In the case of child rape, performing a heavily psychologically damaging action on a vulnerable hum
And yet you still wont say that this is wrong? You're taking this too far.
she was obviously abused as a child.
i suspect stating that child rape is a
"heavily psychologically damaging action on a vulnerable human" indicates that the poster feels child rape is wrong
thank youuuu
I'M OBVIOUSLY STATING THE REASONS WHY CHILD RAPE IS WRONG
you twat.
Ooh
Interesting.
potd
how very scientific
It can't be discussed with rationale or scientific logic...
it is just wrong! Get that into your dense, mopped head.
You’re a bizarre girl...and one who is really struggling at this articulation game.
you calling anyone else 'dense' is hilarious
^this
If you(tdb) could take apart her argument,rather than name-calling...
'mildly amusing'' perhaps.
Not hilarious...don't embellish on things to get your point across.
I think it's more just taking an exaggeratedly liberal stance
just for the sake of it.
talking about
ethics and discussing/justifying why something is or isn't wrong is not a liberal thing to do, its a philosophical thing, innit G.(90s slang added to make sure tone of condescending twat is consistent throughout)
Nah,
isn't philosophy more abstact though?
I think ^^that^^ is sociology.
mebe, dunno
thought it was to do with meta-ethics n that
Both are right I suppose
Welcome to the social board by the way.Bear in mind day shifters are mush more officey
ta
i expect all future threads to be of this standard and tone, make it so.
I think so too
well sorry if I wasn't clear but I was basically trying to say it sounds like the habitual ramblings of a totally exaggerated liberal who's obsessed with civil liberties to the extent that bestiality becomes your God given right
nah it is philosophy ¬¬
well ethics which is part of it ¬¬ perhaps
innit
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID
(not Shambles, I mean the popular joke where you say "THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID" after someone says something)
Theyre talking about wanking pandas down there
im gonna go watch that unfold, more fun yeh?
:DDDDD
if i was an animal
i'd like a blowjob from a human
it should be perfectly acceptable
to be mounted by a horse. How is this harming anybody?
everyone knows a horse's cock is bigger than a man's sphincter!
SILLY MR HANDS!!!
yep
there's no pictures or anything.
Any human involvement/persuasion
to have teh sexes with the animals is obviously wrong.
but should it be a matter for the State?
Morally wrong?
How so?
yes
and yes for fucks sakes come on..
so the law should apply to everything that is 'morally wrong'?
Yes
See below
your a wind up merchant, Le_Shambles
either that, or when you was young you got extremely perverse with a can of Chappie and Fido's tongue.
vivid scenes
I'm not a wind up merchant
you're all busy saying OH IT'S OBVIOUSLY WRONG OMGGGGGGGGG like the world is going to collapse if we discuss principles supporting these assertions. GET A GRIP.
stop making assertions by TYPING IN CAPITALS
It's a lucid indicator of THE BRATTY LITTLE MADAM YOU ARE.
...
oh no you di'unnt
Oh for christs sake bumbler,
take on the argument,not the arguer.
And she has far more ammunition than you anyway
ammunition that involves ALOT OF CAPITALS
oh god. That is intimidating
Maybe she'll even use Number Lock.
No,
ammunition that involves you wanking off to a video of a woman giving birth,and mentioning something about hostage porn.
Oh,and all the references to peadoism in your posts,even if your joking,it's in incredibly poor taste.
(P.S.I fully support your right to joke about things like that by the way,just don't expect favourable reactions)
I'm glad you've assessed my oeuvre with such s perceptive eye
Can you be my biographer?
he's right though
Who is?
Bumbler saying that Shambles just looks a brat using caps all the time
as it adds nothing
caps I mean haha
BUT THEY DO WHEN YOU LAUGH "HAHAHAHAH" SEE
Hmmmm.......
It does emphasis a point though,and no harm done by using them.As you said yourself,it doesn't affect the argument
re: the capitals in the above post
the first set is a satirical paraphrase of your assertions, not an assertion made by me
the second is an imperative, not an assertion
the use of capitals is BOLSHY and ILL-MANNERED
Cut it out before I set fire to your party dress.
P.s. The use of caps lock is never imperative round these parts.
If your an ardent fan of that specific function, I suggest you regulate a Neo-Nazi Skinhead forum, and rally up the 'troops'' with your talk of 'child rape'' and 'penguin fucking''.
I like this forum
because everyone is simaltaeneously quite intelligent and very, very stupid and because the majority of people are taking the piss.
how many incorrect vowels can you
fit in one word? try it now
which camp do I fall into?
No. the grammatical mood of the sentence was imperative
it wasn't imperative that i wrote it in capitals
have you always had reading comprehension problems?
(hes taking the pish)
people on the internet> people elsewhere
^ someone who gets it.
it's a stupid joke.
and he is stupid.
and the birds are stupid, and the trees are stupid
and everything is just stupid. waah waah waah.
How so?
:|
seeing as we are playing moral philosophy
according to emotivism youre just saying thedailybumbler Booooo! and thedailybumbler has no control over his actions. I hate myself far more than you hate me, trust.
Look:
If an act which everyone were to engage in,society as a whole would not function.This is an immoral act.A moral act is one which if everybody did,society would still function.
Therefore it is not morally wrong,but ethically wrong.
That^ negates any other argument about "morallity".It's flawless.It's the work of Bertrand Russel.It's beutifull.
Also,we are NOT getting into control tonight.
Oh,I have no idea what "emotivism"
I'm only playing
i know fuck all about philosophy past the vera vera basics but the categorical imperitave is not part of evryones system of ethics/morals and you cant tell me tht it is therefore morally wrong so ner!
Look,
it's only morally wrong if society breaks down if everybody did it.
Take murder.That is immoral.Why?Because if everybody killed somebody,how long would society last?
nah thats not true
mor·al [ máwr?l ]
adjective
Definition:
1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave
2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done
3. according to common standard of justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
a moral victory.
4. encouraging goodness and decency: giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably
5. good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large
6. able to tell right from wrong: able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge
7. based on personal conviction: based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof
nowhere does it say what you give as an example.
O.k.,
but where do we get these notions of right or wrong?
I feel much more comfortable with having a thought-process to work off of,as people have wildly different views on what is right.
Surely a common,working moral standpoint is no bad thing.
Or have I over-stepped my reach?If that makes sense
I think the whole universability thing
is the best standpoint to take but yuou cant declare set morals in a philosophical debate. the others debater ppl are duty bound to ruin you
True
Or can you argue the set morals at the start and take it from there?
you can argue
that these morals/system of morality is what you believe in (and why you think you're right) but not that it is what everyone should believe in (and that you ARE right)
Alright,
that's very sensble and fair.
But the only difference is in the wording.The arguement reamians the same.
I think.
;)
Yeah i think so
but arguing/debating with someone who actually knows their stuff is scary and you have to be very sensitive about the language you use
I dunno about that.
From my experiance,it's people like fucktherave who come out the best,rather than the pedants.
But then again,I've never taken part in an actually debate.
It's been fun.Am going to bed.Sleep well
P.s.^That does not mean I'm brushing you off.I'll read your reply in the morning,if you leave one,but I'm knackered
night
night
thats one theory though
there are others, utilitarianism and negative utilitiarinasinsadmnsm, consequentialimsmsm. Im playing devils advocate http://preview.tinyurl.com/5vfykq because i totally agree with you about tht theory but we cant have people going around saying ther is a fixed moral code/code of ethics now can we?
no of course not
morals are a personal thing, but generally there is a collective consensus which the majority would agree with. obviously there are issues where it is divided, and morality there comes down to personal views. Im just saying the thing about if society would not function if everyone did the immorral act is only one way of looking at it.
Oh!
I'm not saying that that's the ONLY way.I'm just saying that I think it works
Yeah i can see the point of it
but i think as with these things each of the approaches have their own merits. I prefer to lok at if it encroaches upon the freedom or wellbeing of others as well, but yeah.
theres normally a qualifier on these sort of
arguments that Kant came up with that says "never treat another person as a means to an end". It is pretty much perfect for me personally
Hmm...
True.I thought you could,but I just thought if someone tried to force theirs onto me.Nevermind
Fuck,
ignore the "Therefore it is not morally wrong,but ethically wrong." bit.I just copied and pasted my point from further down
Don't resort to his level.
You're winning!(Beides the last bit)
lol.
soweee ¬¬
No. I skim-read your posts because they bore me.
Get some vigor, girl. Inject abit of spice into your writing.
You've picked this up completly wrong.
I can't even be bothered to say why,as all you do is say "That's wrong" and move on,so why should we treat you any diferently?
you're right.
i will take your lead and be bolshy and ill-mannered through the tone of my communication all on its own.
fucking hippy bullshit, i say!!!
:D
Phrases like that are very unladylike
yay.
Morality:
If an act which everyone were to engage in,society as a whole would not function.This is an immoral act.A moral act is one which if everybody did,society would still function.
Therefore it is not morally wrong,but ethically wrong.
Poorly worded,
but the point comeing across should be the same.
fair enough
ok this is obviously just a wind up now
asking people to give reasoning for their statements is a wind up?
Asking for reasons doesn't mean I disagree.
Someone could say "Yeah, being against interracial sex is obviously wrong". A statement that I completely agree with, but one which lacks any reasons to support it. Asking "why do you think the way you do" is hardly astounding. That's all I'm doing. Gosh.
interracial sex is HOTTTT
^^ we should talk about this
^Totally!
what are you talking about?
Interracial sex is obviously not wrong presuming it's between two consenting humans. Interracial sex is not comparable to bestialty at all.
interracial sex RULEZZ
my ex girlfriend was mixed race, does that make me super interracial?
That makes your ex HAWT!
High five?
^ 5 ^ 5 ^ 5
:D
That's not the point you fool.
I was using an example of a moral claim i agreed with to make the point that even if you make a claim that everyone agreed with, that still does not explain why it is correct.
Check out your amendment, "presuming it's between two consenting humans". We infer if it was not, it would be wrong, because forcing someone innocent do have sex against their will is wrong; because, say, if you were a utilitarian, it causes greater suffering than happiness. Yes?
Now, the fact that we have just reasoned as to why, within one moral system, rape is wrong, does not make us morally bankrupt. It makes us reasonable.
i think rapists
are probably pretty happy with themselves
does their happiness > the victims suffering though?
What has that got to do with anything mentioned so far?
utiliteraiannananerian ethical theory
Le shambles: dunno judging happiness levels v difficult. (no)
Never heard of it.
And I don't think the fact that arapist enjoys rape cancels out the suffering and trauma experianced by the victim
utiliteraiannananerian ethical theorists
might
But you still agree with that statement.
Elaborate.
What statement?
That interracial sex is not wrong?
Yes.
Because consensual sex between two people of any "race" harms no one and encroaches on no one's freedom. Not to mention the idea of "race" being socially constructed anyway.
ugh don't call me a fool, dizzy
choose better analogies or you could've just cut the crap and actually said "What are the reasons that tell you bestiality is wrong?" - in response to that question first let me give an obligatory lol. Why I believe and why most people I assume believe it is wrong is because the animal cannot consent. And then there's the comedic side issues which are by no means irrelevant: And how are you going to organize this fuck fest? Are people going to just fuck them in open fields? What about dick infection? What about injury to animal? What about society as a whole? Is little Jimmy actually going to be told when he's 5 that it's okay to go fuck animals? Wont this lead to a very confused human race? Well this was pretty funny to speculate
Better to think for ourselves,
rather than just assume it is wrong.
P.s.It is wrong,for exactly the reasons you've given
I would've just thought it was obvious it was wrong
for the reasons give etc
It was an example, not an analogy
and ta for obliging
why is interacial sex wrong?
if you can't be arsed to read posts, just fuck off
This guy is the uncle of someone who was in my tutor group at school
of course by default the kid in my class ended up being called 'Goatfucker' (after being correctly informed as more details emerged. Until that time 'pigfucker' was used.
Look at the fucking state of him!
what if the animal is sexy?
:D
everyone knows
that if you bum an animal and get arrested, you can take the animal to court and if the majority of the jury agree said animal is sexy the charges are dropped. if the animal is ugly, it is treated as a rape
Is that true with normal rape as well?
Because I don't want to rape uggos anyway.
They arent called
'paradise' allotments for nowt.
This has 107 replies
LMAO!
206 now!
:''''D
I've been going around describing myself as a zoophile for years.........
in my innocence I just assumed that this was the correct term for guys that really like wildlife parks, turns out I was tacitly admitting to inter-species sexing.
Back to the matter at hand, where do you draw the line Vikram?
Are you broadly in favour of being tossed off by a panda, as long as the panda was into it?
THE PUBLIC MUST KNOW!
oh, now Pandas...they are a different matter entirely...
^ New debate topic!
:D
I should really go to bed,but I don't want to miss this
Haven't you seen the documentaries
of the Attenborough? Panda's have almost a species suicidal lack of sex drive for their own kind never mind a man.
Binobo monkeys on the other hand....
In fact monkeys on any hand would be quite amusing.
i dont think having sex with an animal is a matter for the State
UNLESS there are animal cruelty issues - in which case the offender should be treated as the local sociopath that likes to torture cats.
Outside of paedophilia and rape, I don't think i do have a line beyond which I think it's okay for the Government to regulate sexuality.
What if the panda was underage?
Would you come down hard?
i'd come pretty hard
It's a sticky subject
:D
:')
i love you
What's wrong with paedophilia?
Nothing!
Only kidding!
^ Tacit admission of guilt
The fact that rape is inherent in the act of it,
and rape is immoral.Therefore it is wrong
No it's not
*sigh
Why not?And be clear about it please
It's just not?
I'm not really sure what I have to explain. Paedophilia means fancying children and nothing else.
fancying children is not and should not be illegal.
having sex with a child is though and that was obviously what was being referred to
^ one-track mind
a paedo tried to chat me up recently
but i didn't kick off about it. it must be pretty lame if you fancy kids. you can't help it and you can't bum them all
you are 19
so he would have just been a gay? ARE YOU SAYING GAY PEOPLE ARE PAEDOS? I dont think you wanna be doing that.
i look a bit younger
and he said "how old are you?" and i said 19 and he was happily surprised and said "ahh nothing wrong with this then is there? just two adults talking!!"
how was he a paedophile or a wannabe paedophile?
i don't understand
he put his hand on his knee, and when he found out he was 19
he moved it away
gosh darnit
paedophilin' never gets any easier!
he kept touching my face and my leg
and he thought i was like 16-17 cos he was asking about AS levels
16 is the age of consent
16 isn't paedophilia
Vikrams motto right there
I THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT
cunt
that still wouldnt make him a paedophile though
just a dirty old man
^
he was def a paedo
obv not because of this instance, because i'm 19, but if you approach young boys in the street and start being a super perv, in my eyes, you're a paedo
nah you are a pervert
you might be a paedophile if you like young children or whatever, but approaching people over the age of consent does not make you a paedophile
no YOU are a pervert
ILL TOUCH YOUR FACE GOOD!
btw he also bummed a 10 year old
did i not mention this?
:D
I read that as "AIDS levels"
I assumed it was the sexing he was refering to
You still don't need to rape them
It's an assumption
based on my culture experiances.And apeado does "need" to rape them to get satisfaction,for that particular itch.
I honestly don't know
i dont really think you can speculate
unless you fully understand it really
Good point
^ this one is a barrel of laughs.
Nothing atol!
Hurrah!
YOU CRAZY
The cat was totally up for it your honour
he miaowed and everything
:D
I was wondering if you'd show up.Don't disappoint me,or I shall be crushed...
i was gonna go to bed
but ill see how this pans out for a little while :D
perving over a 16 old is not paedophilia
it was up there somewhere, i just thought it was a really stupid comment.
lol
I never saw this. Personally I find dolphins the sexiest of the animal kingdom.
Not Humans
?
pfff humans are fucking ugly
hey guy
http://www.sexwork.com/family/dolphins1.html
i dont think it should be illegal
unless actual cruelty is involved
how can it not be involved?
what proof is there that a horse doesn't enjoy being hummed by some girl?
if it doesn't harm the animal
how is it cruel?
how do you know it doesn't harm the animal?
yeah, fuck freedom of choice and all that
animals don't really have that
May we should restrict it to those bound for the abattoir?
freedom of choice?
you can keep them in captivity, slaughter them at will and eat their flesh. what free choice?
you're right.
it's been a long day.
soooooo
because another species eats them for survival and whatnot, you should be able to run around fucking them for no replication consequence too? K. Well how about fuck em and then eat em, that's how I roll, baby :D
we don't eat animals for survival
not for literal survival
but we don't eat them for no reason.
we eat them for selfish pleasure
we like how their cooked flesh tastes.
HAHA
Oh man, you got me - I'M the one that's sick :'D
It's called nature.
battery farms are well natural innit
A dominant species consuming another
is, yes.
See my contribution
to the thread about words that invalidate arguments. Cant be arsed? Dont invoke "nature", it doesnt work
^Knows
because theres different levels of consent
i.e. we can think about it, they just respond to urges, thus can be exploited.
amen jack///
Seriously everyone...leave animals alone. They are the only sacred things on the planet...they sure as hell beat humans.
YES EVERYONE
STOP PROMOTING BESTIALITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ALL DOING
_vikram is.
AND EVERYONE ELSE OBVIOUSLY
Not me.
I was just joking.
sacred?
so how come it's okay to enslave, kill and consume them?
It's not.
Can you outline all your views on this sort of thing tommorrow,when I can actually think straight
I don't eat meat.
I can't tell if this is a joke
so I'll assume it's a joke
it's not a joke
i don't approve of sexing your pet, but i don't think it should be a matter for the State
This was a joke
I deplore any sort of cruelty/interference with animals. I don't even kill flies.
no I was talking about Vikrams post
oh...
that boy is just nutty.
I would definately grate his lips off.
*fuck him
No.
Not if he hurts animals.
abhor*
Paedophilia as well, right?
hi!
Shush, Helene
This is a serious discussion.
oh shit
no
we don't barbecue children
Spit roast, right?
YOU SICKEN ME.
I can't believe this one nearly picked up the pace.
Shouldn't we all just turn in.
good idea
no this is hilarious!
it's actually being debated now wether it's against your civil liberties to not be allowed to go around fucking animals! Man I knew DiS was left, but jesus
What is invalid about this debate
Exactly. Nothing.
is this a joke?
I can't tell if everyone is just joking :'D
i'm just saying it's not an invalid debate
It's fucking animals!
We are actually weighing up the pros and cons of porking a pig, goat, cat, beaver, horse, salmon etc.
What sort of mental shags cats?!
Wow
That does not make the debate itself invalid by any means
It does to me.
There are just some things you can't apply cerebral intellect to. It's wrong...end of.
In the same way that the right and wrongs of Child Rape can't be discussed.
You wanna see my massive essay
in favour of paedophilia?
*erection
Whatever, DICKRAM
they obviously can
just because something is obviously emotionally abhorrent doesn't mean its rightness or wrongness cannot be assessed rationally.
In the case of child rape, performing a heavily psychologically damaging action on a vulnerable human.
et cetera, et cetera
This clearly isn't an appropriate forum to express those views.
what views?
The view that one can rationally explain the reasons why child rape is wrong? HOW HORRIBLE.
If only yes_ were here...
He'd have a witty reply.All I can come up with is "Hey bumbler,grow up"
yes_ was about as witty as a toothless pisser cackling into a Frosties box.
"In the case of child rape, performing a heavily psychologically damaging action on a vulnerable hum
And yet you still wont say that this is wrong? You're taking this too far.
she was obviously abused as a child.
i suspect stating that child rape is a
"heavily psychologically damaging action on a vulnerable human" indicates that the poster feels child rape is wrong
thank youuuu
I'M OBVIOUSLY STATING THE REASONS WHY CHILD RAPE IS WRONG
you twat.
Ooh
Interesting.
potd
how very scientific
It can't be discussed with rationale or scientific logic...
it is just wrong! Get that into your dense, mopped head.
You’re a bizarre girl...and one who is really struggling at this articulation game.
you calling anyone else 'dense' is hilarious
^this
If you(tdb) could take apart her argument,rather than name-calling...
'mildly amusing'' perhaps.
Not hilarious...don't embellish on things to get your point across.
I think it's more just taking an exaggeratedly liberal stance
just for the sake of it.
talking about
ethics and discussing/justifying why something is or isn't wrong is not a liberal thing to do, its a philosophical thing, innit G.(90s slang added to make sure tone of condescending twat is consistent throughout)
Nah,
isn't philosophy more abstact though?
I think ^^that^^ is sociology.
mebe, dunno
thought it was to do with meta-ethics n that
Both are right I suppose
Welcome to the social board by the way.Bear in mind day shifters are mush more officey
ta
i expect all future threads to be of this standard and tone, make it so.
I think so too
well sorry if I wasn't clear but I was basically trying to say it sounds like the habitual ramblings of a totally exaggerated liberal who's obsessed with civil liberties to the extent that bestiality becomes your God given right
nah it is philosophy ¬¬
well ethics which is part of it ¬¬ perhaps
innit
THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID
(not Shambles, I mean the popular joke where you say "THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID" after someone says something)
Theyre talking about wanking pandas down there
im gonna go watch that unfold, more fun yeh?
:DDDDD
if i was an animal
i'd like a blowjob from a human
it should be perfectly acceptable
to be mounted by a horse. How is this harming anybody?
oh dear lord.
Give me strength.
what was that man called
who got fucked to death by a horse?
It hurt him
here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan
:,,,,,,DDDDDDDDDD
i don't want to click that do i
everyone knows a horse's cock is bigger than a man's sphincter!
SILLY MR HANDS!!!
yep
there's no pictures or anything.
Any human involvement/persuasion
to have teh sexes with the animals is obviously wrong.
but should it be a matter for the State?
Morally wrong?
How so?
yes
and yes for fucks sakes come on..
so the law should apply to everything that is 'morally wrong'?
Yes
See below
your a wind up merchant, Le_Shambles
either that, or when you was young you got extremely perverse with a can of Chappie and Fido's tongue.
vivid scenes
I'm not a wind up merchant
you're all busy saying OH IT'S OBVIOUSLY WRONG OMGGGGGGGGG like the world is going to collapse if we discuss principles supporting these assertions. GET A GRIP.
stop making assertions by TYPING IN CAPITALS
It's a lucid indicator of THE BRATTY LITTLE MADAM YOU ARE.
...
oh no you di'unnt
Oh for christs sake bumbler,
take on the argument,not the arguer.
And she has far more ammunition than you anyway
ammunition that involves ALOT OF CAPITALS
oh god. That is intimidating
Maybe she'll even use Number Lock.
No,
ammunition that involves you wanking off to a video of a woman giving birth,and mentioning something about hostage porn.
Oh,and all the references to peadoism in your posts,even if your joking,it's in incredibly poor taste.
(P.S.I fully support your right to joke about things like that by the way,just don't expect favourable reactions)
I'm glad you've assessed my oeuvre with such s perceptive eye
Can you be my biographer?
he's right though
Who is?
Bumbler saying that Shambles just looks a brat using caps all the time
as it adds nothing
caps I mean haha
BUT THEY DO WHEN YOU LAUGH "HAHAHAHAH" SEE
Hmmmm.......
It does emphasis a point though,and no harm done by using them.As you said yourself,it doesn't affect the argument
re: the capitals in the above post
the first set is a satirical paraphrase of your assertions, not an assertion made by me
the second is an imperative, not an assertion
the use of capitals is BOLSHY and ILL-MANNERED
Cut it out before I set fire to your party dress.
P.s. The use of caps lock is never imperative round these parts.
If your an ardent fan of that specific function, I suggest you regulate a Neo-Nazi Skinhead forum, and rally up the 'troops'' with your talk of 'child rape'' and 'penguin fucking''.
I like this forum
because everyone is simaltaeneously quite intelligent and very, very stupid and because the majority of people are taking the piss.
how many incorrect vowels can you
fit in one word? try it now
which camp do I fall into?
No. the grammatical mood of the sentence was imperative
it wasn't imperative that i wrote it in capitals
have you always had reading comprehension problems?
(hes taking the pish)
people on the internet> people elsewhere
^ someone who gets it.
it's a stupid joke.
and he is stupid.
and the birds are stupid, and the trees are stupid
and everything is just stupid. waah waah waah.
How so?
:|
seeing as we are playing moral philosophy
according to emotivism youre just saying thedailybumbler Booooo! and thedailybumbler has no control over his actions. I hate myself far more than you hate me, trust.
Look:
If an act which everyone were to engage in,society as a whole would not function.This is an immoral act.A moral act is one which if everybody did,society would still function.
Therefore it is not morally wrong,but ethically wrong.
That^ negates any other argument about "morallity".It's flawless.It's the work of Bertrand Russel.It's beutifull.
Also,we are NOT getting into control tonight.
Oh,I have no idea what "emotivism"
I'm only playing
i know fuck all about philosophy past the vera vera basics but the categorical imperitave is not part of evryones system of ethics/morals and you cant tell me tht it is therefore morally wrong so ner!
Look,
it's only morally wrong if society breaks down if everybody did it.
Take murder.That is immoral.Why?Because if everybody killed somebody,how long would society last?
nah thats not true
mor·al [ máwr?l ]
adjective
Definition:
1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave
2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done
3. according to common standard of justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
a moral victory.
4. encouraging goodness and decency: giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably
5. good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large
6. able to tell right from wrong: able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge
7. based on personal conviction: based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof
nowhere does it say what you give as an example.
O.k.,
but where do we get these notions of right or wrong?
I feel much more comfortable with having a thought-process to work off of,as people have wildly different views on what is right.
Surely a common,working moral standpoint is no bad thing.
Or have I over-stepped my reach?If that makes sense
I think the whole universability thing
is the best standpoint to take but yuou cant declare set morals in a philosophical debate. the others debater ppl are duty bound to ruin you
True
Or can you argue the set morals at the start and take it from there?
you can argue
that these morals/system of morality is what you believe in (and why you think you're right) but not that it is what everyone should believe in (and that you ARE right)
Alright,
that's very sensble and fair.
But the only difference is in the wording.The arguement reamians the same.
I think.
;)
Yeah i think so
but arguing/debating with someone who actually knows their stuff is scary and you have to be very sensitive about the language you use
I dunno about that.
From my experiance,it's people like fucktherave who come out the best,rather than the pedants.
But then again,I've never taken part in an actually debate.
It's been fun.Am going to bed.Sleep well
P.s.^That does not mean I'm brushing you off.I'll read your reply in the morning,if you leave one,but I'm knackered
night
night
thats one theory though
there are others, utilitarianism and negative utilitiarinasinsadmnsm, consequentialimsmsm. Im playing devils advocate http://preview.tinyurl.com/5vfykq because i totally agree with you about tht theory but we cant have people going around saying ther is a fixed moral code/code of ethics now can we?
no of course not
morals are a personal thing, but generally there is a collective consensus which the majority would agree with. obviously there are issues where it is divided, and morality there comes down to personal views. Im just saying the thing about if society would not function if everyone did the immorral act is only one way of looking at it.
Oh!
I'm not saying that that's the ONLY way.I'm just saying that I think it works
Yeah i can see the point of it
but i think as with these things each of the approaches have their own merits. I prefer to lok at if it encroaches upon the freedom or wellbeing of others as well, but yeah.
theres normally a qualifier on these sort of
arguments that Kant came up with that says "never treat another person as a means to an end". It is pretty much perfect for me personally
Hmm...
True.I thought you could,but I just thought if someone tried to force theirs onto me.Nevermind
Fuck,
ignore the "Therefore it is not morally wrong,but ethically wrong." bit.I just copied and pasted my point from further down
Don't resort to his level.
You're winning!(Beides the last bit)
lol.
soweee ¬¬
No. I skim-read your posts because they bore me.
Get some vigor, girl. Inject abit of spice into your writing.
You've picked this up completly wrong.
I can't even be bothered to say why,as all you do is say "That's wrong" and move on,so why should we treat you any diferently?
you're right.
i will take your lead and be bolshy and ill-mannered through the tone of my communication all on its own.
fucking hippy bullshit, i say!!!
:D
Phrases like that are very unladylike
yay.
Morality:
If an act which everyone were to engage in,society as a whole would not function.This is an immoral act.A moral act is one which if everybody did,society would still function.
Therefore it is not morally wrong,but ethically wrong.
Poorly worded,
but the point comeing across should be the same.
fair enough
ok this is obviously just a wind up now
asking people to give reasoning for their statements is a wind up?
Asking for reasons doesn't mean I disagree.
Someone could say "Yeah, being against interracial sex is obviously wrong". A statement that I completely agree with, but one which lacks any reasons to support it. Asking "why do you think the way you do" is hardly astounding. That's all I'm doing. Gosh.
interracial sex is HOTTTT
^^ we should talk about this
^Totally!
what are you talking about?
Interracial sex is obviously not wrong presuming it's between two consenting humans. Interracial sex is not comparable to bestialty at all.
interracial sex RULEZZ
my ex girlfriend was mixed race, does that make me super interracial?
That makes your ex HAWT!
High five?
^ 5 ^ 5 ^ 5
:D
That's not the point you fool.
I was using an example of a moral claim i agreed with to make the point that even if you make a claim that everyone agreed with, that still does not explain why it is correct.
Check out your amendment, "presuming it's between two consenting humans". We infer if it was not, it would be wrong, because forcing someone innocent do have sex against their will is wrong; because, say, if you were a utilitarian, it causes greater suffering than happiness. Yes?
Now, the fact that we have just reasoned as to why, within one moral system, rape is wrong, does not make us morally bankrupt. It makes us reasonable.
i think rapists
are probably pretty happy with themselves
does their happiness > the victims suffering though?
What has that got to do with anything mentioned so far?
utiliteraiannananerian ethical theory
Le shambles: dunno judging happiness levels v difficult. (no)
Never heard of it.
And I don't think the fact that arapist enjoys rape cancels out the suffering and trauma experianced by the victim
utiliteraiannananerian ethical theorists
might
But you still agree with that statement.
Elaborate.
What statement?
That interracial sex is not wrong?
Yes.
Because consensual sex between two people of any "race" harms no one and encroaches on no one's freedom. Not to mention the idea of "race" being socially constructed anyway.
ugh don't call me a fool, dizzy
choose better analogies or you could've just cut the crap and actually said "What are the reasons that tell you bestiality is wrong?" - in response to that question first let me give an obligatory lol. Why I believe and why most people I assume believe it is wrong is because the animal cannot consent. And then there's the comedic side issues which are by no means irrelevant: And how are you going to organize this fuck fest? Are people going to just fuck them in open fields? What about dick infection? What about injury to animal? What about society as a whole? Is little Jimmy actually going to be told when he's 5 that it's okay to go fuck animals? Wont this lead to a very confused human race? Well this was pretty funny to speculate
Better to think for ourselves,
rather than just assume it is wrong.
P.s.It is wrong,for exactly the reasons you've given
I would've just thought it was obvious it was wrong
for the reasons give etc
It was an example, not an analogy
and ta for obliging
why is interacial sex wrong?
if you can't be arsed to read posts, just fuck off
This guy is the uncle of someone who was in my tutor group at school
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article145635.ece
of course by default the kid in my class ended up being called 'Goatfucker' (after being correctly informed as more details emerged. Until that time 'pigfucker' was used.
Look at the fucking state of him!
what if the animal is sexy?
:D
everyone knows
that if you bum an animal and get arrested, you can take the animal to court and if the majority of the jury agree said animal is sexy the charges are dropped. if the animal is ugly, it is treated as a rape
Is that true with normal rape as well?
Because I don't want to rape uggos anyway.
They arent called
'paradise' allotments for nowt.
This has 107 replies
LMAO!
206 now!
:''''D
I've been going around describing myself as a zoophile for years.........
in my innocence I just assumed that this was the correct term for guys that really like wildlife parks, turns out I was tacitly admitting to inter-species sexing.
Back to the matter at hand, where do you draw the line Vikram?
Are you broadly in favour of being tossed off by a panda, as long as the panda was into it?
THE PUBLIC MUST KNOW!
oh, now Pandas...they are a different matter entirely...
^ New debate topic!
:D
I should really go to bed,but I don't want to miss this
Haven't you seen the documentaries
of the Attenborough? Panda's have almost a species suicidal lack of sex drive for their own kind never mind a man.
Binobo monkeys on the other hand....
In fact monkeys on any hand would be quite amusing.
i dont think having sex with an animal is a matter for the State
UNLESS there are animal cruelty issues - in which case the offender should be treated as the local sociopath that likes to torture cats.
Outside of paedophilia and rape, I don't think i do have a line beyond which I think it's okay for the Government to regulate sexuality.
What if the panda was underage?
Would you come down hard?
i'd come pretty hard
It's a sticky subject
:D
:')
i love you
What's wrong with paedophilia?
Nothing!
Only kidding!
^ Tacit admission of guilt
The fact that rape is inherent in the act of it,
and rape is immoral.Therefore it is wrong
No it's not
*sigh
Why not?And be clear about it please
It's just not?
I'm not really sure what I have to explain. Paedophilia means fancying children and nothing else.
fancying children is not and should not be illegal.
having sex with a child is though and that was obviously what was being referred to
^ one-track mind
a paedo tried to chat me up recently
but i didn't kick off about it. it must be pretty lame if you fancy kids. you can't help it and you can't bum them all
you are 19
so he would have just been a gay? ARE YOU SAYING GAY PEOPLE ARE PAEDOS? I dont think you wanna be doing that.
i look a bit younger
and he said "how old are you?" and i said 19 and he was happily surprised and said "ahh nothing wrong with this then is there? just two adults talking!!"
how was he a paedophile or a wannabe paedophile?
i don't understand
he put his hand on his knee, and when he found out he was 19
he moved it away
gosh darnit
paedophilin' never gets any easier!
he kept touching my face and my leg
and he thought i was like 16-17 cos he was asking about AS levels
16 is the age of consent
16 isn't paedophilia
Vikrams motto right there
I THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT
cunt
that still wouldnt make him a paedophile though
just a dirty old man
^
he was def a paedo
obv not because of this instance, because i'm 19, but if you approach young boys in the street and start being a super perv, in my eyes, you're a paedo
nah you are a pervert
you might be a paedophile if you like young children or whatever, but approaching people over the age of consent does not make you a paedophile
no YOU are a pervert
ILL TOUCH YOUR FACE GOOD!
btw he also bummed a 10 year old
did i not mention this?
:D
I read that as "AIDS levels"
I assumed it was the sexing he was refering to
You still don't need to rape them
It's an assumption
based on my culture experiances.And apeado does "need" to rape them to get satisfaction,for that particular itch.
I honestly don't know
i dont really think you can speculate
unless you fully understand it really
Good point
^ this one is a barrel of laughs.
Nothing atol!
Hurrah!
YOU CRAZY
The cat was totally up for it your honour
he miaowed and everything
:D
I was wondering if you'd show up.Don't disappoint me,or I shall be crushed...
i was gonna go to bed
but ill see how this pans out for a little while :D
perving over a 16 old is not paedophilia
it was up there somewhere, i just thought it was a really stupid comment.
*year old
i don't believe this
believe what...
That an inane, jokey thread...
managed to get 250+ replies.
I hope everyone who wasn't on night shift
reads this thread and gets a good laugh