Total Posts:319|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bestiality/Zoophilia

ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 3:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've made several debates about this but some people have apparently been desperate to troll about it on the forums. Well do it here so you don't derail other topics.

If anyone has anything reasonable or constructive to say I will probably carry on a conversation, for the rest be warned I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant and thus will simply call out informal fallacies if you don't.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 4:03:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 3:24:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I've made several debates about this but some people have apparently been desperate to troll about it on the forums. Well do it here so you don't derail other topics.

If anyone has anything reasonable or constructive to say I will probably carry on a conversation, for the rest be warned I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant and thus will simply call out informal fallacies if you don't.

Isn't a fallacy in its self to call out fallacies having nothing to do with the topic?
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 5:47:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 4:03:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 3:24:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I've made several debates about this but some people have apparently been desperate to troll about it on the forums. Well do it here so you don't derail other topics.

If anyone has anything reasonable or constructive to say I will probably carry on a conversation, for the rest be warned I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant and thus will simply call out informal fallacies if you don't.

Isn't a fallacy in its self to call out fallacies having nothing to do with the topic?

Nope, identifying fallacies is relevant to every topic because they are always fallacious.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What exactly is the point of this thread? Just to read people's opinions on bestiality/zoophilia?

Personally, I do not object to others having sex with animals, and it should not be illegal. Anybody who has sex with an animal (either once or repeatedly) should exercise extreme caution however, and get regular screenings for STDs/STIs.

I wouldn't do it myself, though. BBC's are more than enough without throwing a horse into the equation.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:41:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 5:47:40 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/20/2013 4:03:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 3:24:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I've made several debates about this but some people have apparently been desperate to troll about it on the forums. Well do it here so you don't derail other topics.

If anyone has anything reasonable or constructive to say I will probably carry on a conversation, for the rest be warned I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant and thus will simply call out informal fallacies if you don't.

Isn't a fallacy in its self to call out fallacies having nothing to do with the topic?

Nope, identifying fallacies is relevant to every topic because they are always fallacious.

Just because something is a fallacy does not mean that it is incorrect, only that it is not founded on logic. So pointing out something as a fallacy is not always sufficient.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's degrading, but shouldn't be illegal.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 12:10:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 9:39:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
I prefer bestiality. If I wanted consensual sex, I'd seduce a minor.

This guy is great.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 12:10:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:11:14 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
What exactly is the point of this thread? Just to read people's opinions on bestiality/zoophilia?

Personally, I do not object to others having sex with animals, and it should not be illegal. Anybody who has sex with an animal (either once or repeatedly) should exercise extreme caution however, and get regular screenings for STDs/STIs.

I wouldn't do it myself, though. BBC's are more than enough without throwing a horse into the equation.

This guy makes awful posts.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 6:06:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:11:14 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
What exactly is the point of this thread? Just to read people's opinions on bestiality/zoophilia?

Sure whatever, what are threads for? I'll debate if anyone is interested, I'll discuss, I'll answer questions to the best of my knowledge and I might have fun poking at the haters. Better here than derailing some hapless other thread (not me, people like YYW).

Personally, I do not object to others having sex with animals, and it should not be illegal.
yay

Anybody who has sex with an animal (either once or repeatedly) should exercise extreme caution however, and get regular screenings for STDs/STIs.

As should everyone who engages in promiscuous sexual activity. I would like to point out however that it's a lot easier to know your own animal hasn't been sleeping around than a random human in a bar. Thus it is much easier to secure yourself and the animal against disease provided you don't sleep around.

It is also true that the truly dangerous STDs may remain for a couple days in an animal or human, but they will not infect an animal and thus the animal will not become a carrier or become sick themselves. Thus for the most part STDs and STIs are less of an issue for bestiality.

Almost all human-animal infectious STDs are not purely STDs but can be transmitted other ways as well, thus it is important to screen for them (if they are dangerous enough) in any case.

All in all the only way bestiality is a big risk (medically speaking) is with animals who have recently done it with other humans (whom are infected with human STDs).

I wouldn't do it myself, though. BBC's are more than enough without throwing a horse into the equation.

Well I haven't encountered that acronym before, to me BBC means British Broadcasting Company, and surely throwing a horse into that equation would work out great?

At 11/20/2013 8:41:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/20/2013 5:47:40 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/20/2013 4:03:12 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 3:24:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I've made several debates about this but some people have apparently been desperate to troll about it on the forums. Well do it here so you don't derail other topics.

If anyone has anything reasonable or constructive to say I will probably carry on a conversation, for the rest be warned I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant and thus will simply call out informal fallacies if you don't.

Isn't a fallacy in its self to call out fallacies having nothing to do with the topic?

Nope, identifying fallacies is relevant to every topic because they are always fallacious.

Just because something is a fallacy does not mean that it is incorrect, only that it is not founded on logic. So pointing out something as a fallacy is not always sufficient.

Actually it kinda does. Statements of opinion are fine (those aren't fallacies), but I will interpret anything else as an attempt to support that opinion at which point fallacy or non-fallacy is sufficient to dismiss or accept the support.

At 11/20/2013 8:47:41 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
It's degrading, but shouldn't be illegal.
I agree on the latter, why do you think it's degrading?

At 11/20/2013 9:39:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
I prefer bestiality. If I wanted consensual sex, I'd seduce a minor.
Most relevant animals become sexually and mentally mature before humans, the age of minority is inapplicable to them. <- (This is what I mean when I say I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant)
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 11:43:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 6:06:36 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/20/2013 9:39:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
I prefer bestiality. If I wanted consensual sex, I'd seduce a minor.
Most relevant animals become sexually and mentally mature before humans, the age of minority is inapplicable to them. <- (This is what I mean when I say I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant)

Then by implication all talk of human-human sex is irrelevant, and yet you've been talking about it non<x>stop. Just to quote a few from this very post:

"a random human in a bar" (presumably not an animal bar, but if you do know of any animal singles bars with a lax humans policy help a brother out)

"less of an issue for bestiality" (presumably you don't mean less of an issue for bestiality than for bestiality)

"human STDs"

In conclusion, my post, though perhaps irrelevant and certainly insincere, would have been no more relevant and considerably less coherent if I'd referred to immature animals instead of immature humans.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 12:13:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 11:43:06 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/21/2013 6:06:36 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/20/2013 9:39:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
I prefer bestiality. If I wanted consensual sex, I'd seduce a minor.
Most relevant animals become sexually and mentally mature before humans, the age of minority is inapplicable to them. <- (This is what I mean when I say I will interpret everything as an attempt to say something relevant)

Then by implication all talk of human-human sex is irrelevant

Explain how this is implied please.

In conclusion, my post, though perhaps irrelevant and certainly insincere, would have been no more relevant and considerably less coherent if I'd referred to immature animals instead of immature humans.

It wasn't very coherent to start with. If the first statement has no relation to the second the second seems to make no sense. Minors are not the only entities capable of consenting.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 1:34:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 12:13:28 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:43:06 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
In conclusion, my post, though perhaps irrelevant and certainly insincere, would have been no more relevant and considerably less coherent if I'd referred to immature animals instead of immature humans.

It wasn't very coherent to start with. If the first statement has no relation to the second the second seems to make no sense. Minors are not the only entities capable of consenting.

Speak for yourself; I need a female who's psychologically weak and has no frame of reference in terms of penis size. Furthermore, ease of consent is not the only reason to prefer one's females underage, and provided they're post-pubescent one needn't even invoke pathology. Sure, in that case I wouldn't have needed to specify minors, but then again I wouldn't have needed to specify gender either, and let's face it, if I'd said "woman" instead of "minor" you wouldn't be jumping all over me for bringing heterosexuality into a discussion of bestiality/zoophilia (or maybe you would; you do seem very nitpicky). On the other hand, I have a very good reason for liking my rape victims animal, one that goes without saying (no pun intended): they can't talk, as in talk to the police. As for preferring bestiality (to zoophilia) because of the ease with which an immature animal can be seduced, that would simply be illogical.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 1:55:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 1:34:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/21/2013 12:13:28 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:43:06 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
In conclusion, my post, though perhaps irrelevant and certainly insincere, would have been no more relevant and considerably less coherent if I'd referred to immature animals instead of immature humans.

It wasn't very coherent to start with. If the first statement has no relation to the second the second seems to make no sense. Minors are not the only entities capable of consenting.

Speak for yourself; I need a female who's psychologically weak and has no frame of reference in terms of penis size.

I know I am in no position to criticize but that's pretty odd. I like my women gloriously intelligent and willful but not indoctrinated in that feminist 'got to turn everything into a gender war' crap..... like Samantha Carter.... I mean well after the inside outside comment.

Furthermore, ease of consent is not the only reason to prefer one's females underage, and provided they're post-pubescent one needn't even invoke pathology. Sure, in that case I wouldn't have needed to specify minors, but then again I wouldn't have needed to specify gender either, and let's face it, if I'd said "woman" instead of "minor" you wouldn't be jumping all over me for bringing heterosexuality into a discussion of bestiality/zoophilia (or maybe you would; you do seem very nitpicky).

Bring in heterosexuality, it'll be a party!

On the other hand, I have a very good reason for liking my rape victims animal, one that goes without saying (no pun intended): they can't talk, as in talk to the police.

If you like raping victims there is something wrong with you.

As for preferring bestiality (to zoophilia) because of the ease with which an immature animal can be seduced, that would simply be illogical.

Yea...
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 2:48:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 1:55:05 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:34:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
On the other hand, I have a very good reason for liking my rape victims animal, one that goes without saying (no pun intended): they can't talk, as in talk to the police.

If you like raping victims there is something wrong with you.

But it's my right, goddammit.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 2:54:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 2:48:29 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:55:05 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:34:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
On the other hand, I have a very good reason for liking my rape victims animal, one that goes without saying (no pun intended): they can't talk, as in talk to the police.

If you like raping victims there is something wrong with you.

But it's my right, goddammit.

Your rights end where the rights of others begin, and they begin in the exact same place yours do, self determination.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 6:43:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 2:54:53 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:48:29 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:55:05 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:34:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
On the other hand, I have a very good reason for liking my rape victims animal, one that goes without saying (no pun intended): they can't talk, as in talk to the police.

If you like raping victims there is something wrong with you.

But it's my right, goddammit.

Your rights end where the rights of others begin, and they begin in the exact same place yours do, self determination.

Neigh means no? But if I can't rape, it's not really self determination, is it? It's more like self veto power. We're all interconnected to the extent that it's impossible to act without affecting others, so necessarily your rhetoric conceals different rules for different impositions. With a ratio of about 100-to-Noumena, the libertarians on this site are the Lockean variety, so I can for example predict with great confidence that as long as one first imposes upon others by fencing off part of the commons, you feel he is entitled to impose upon lethally any that should find themselves on the concave side of that fence.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 6:58:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 6:43:49 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:54:53 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:48:29 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:55:05 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:34:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
On the other hand, I have a very good reason for liking my rape victims animal, one that goes without saying (no pun intended): they can't talk, as in talk to the police.

If you like raping victims there is something wrong with you.

But it's my right, goddammit.

Your rights end where the rights of others begin, and they begin in the exact same place yours do, self determination.

Neigh means no?
It's spelled "nay"

But if I can't rape, it's not really self determination, is it?

It is, you decide what you do; not others.

It's more like self veto power.

In the scope of interactions.

We're all interconnected to the extent that it's impossible to act without affecting others, so necessarily your rhetoric conceals different rules for different impositions.

Do not confuse lack of positive affect for an affect. Do not confuse the consumption of opportunity with the interference of the consumption of another.

With a ratio of about 100-to-Noumena, the libertarians on this site are the Lockean variety, so I can for example predict with great confidence that as long as one first imposes upon others by fencing off part of the commons, you feel he is entitled to impose upon lethally any that should find themselves on the concave side of that fence.

Given a reasonable effort to ensure free movement throughout the world, yes.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 6:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 6:58:23 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 6:43:49 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Neigh means no?
It's spelled "nay"

The cry of a horse? Bestiality, remember? The form of rape you sincerely condone even as you condemn me for hypothetically condoning the rape of humans?

But if I can't rape, it's not really self determination, is it?

It is, you decide what you do; not others.

To reiterate, if I can't rape, I'm not really deciding what I do, am I? I'm just choosing among whatever alternatives the moral police (and in this case the actual police) leave me, same as your poor taxpayer chooses what to do with what he's left.

It's more like self veto power.

In the scope of interactions.

As defined by you, with varying degrees of intuitiveness. The vagina integral to Sally's body is Sally's? I'll buy it. But the area of land Sally has presumed to fence off from others? You might as well grant her the area of land that from the air most resembles her face.

We're all interconnected to the extent that it's impossible to act without affecting others, so necessarily your rhetoric conceals different rules for different impositions.

Do not confuse lack of positive affect for an affect. Do not confuse the consumption of opportunity with the interference of the consumption of another.

I'll try, but I'll require a meaningful distinction. How, for example, is enclosure not interference with others' consumption? One day, they're grazing their cattle upon a pasture, and the next they're impeded by a fence. What, did you think man fell from the sky one by one and acquired his social nature secondarily?

With a ratio of about 100-to-Noumena, the libertarians on this site are the Lockean variety, so I can for example predict with great confidence that as long as one first imposes upon others by fencing off part of the commons, you feel he is entitled to impose upon lethally any that should find themselves on the concave side of that fence.

Given a reasonable effort to ensure free movement throughout the world, yes.

What makes an effort reasonable? And what happened to the freedom to consume opportunity? Another's ability to traverse one's land is every bit as potential, not one bit more actual, than his ability to graze cattle or simply exist upon it.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 7:15:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 6:25:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/21/2013 6:58:23 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/21/2013 6:43:49 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
Neigh means no?
It's spelled "nay"

The cry of a horse? Bestiality, remember? The form of rape you sincerely condone even as you condemn me for hypothetically condoning the rape of humans?

Bestiality is not a form of rape. Neigh means the cry of a horse, nay means no.

But if I can't rape, it's not really self determination, is it?

It is, you decide what you do; not others.

To reiterate, if I can't rape, I'm not really deciding what I do, am I? I'm just choosing among whatever alternatives the moral police (and in this case the actual police) leave me, same as your poor taxpayer chooses what to do with what he's left.

Not the same, you are only being denied actions which would interfere with the self-determination of others. Someone spending all the money they earned not giving a penny in taxes does not interfere with others spending their money.

It's more like self veto power.

In the scope of interactions.

As defined by you, with varying degrees of intuitiveness. The vagina integral to Sally's body is Sally's? I'll buy it. But the area of land Sally has presumed to fence off from others? You might as well grant her the area of land that from the air most resembles her face.

I don't grant her land, people do by general agreement; I grant her the house she built, the car she bought. I grant her the property which is rightfully hers by her own effort.

We're all interconnected to the extent that it's impossible to act without affecting others, so necessarily your rhetoric conceals different rules for different impositions.

Do not confuse lack of positive affect for an affect. Do not confuse the consumption of opportunity with the interference of the consumption of another.

I'll try, but I'll require a meaningful distinction. How, for example, is enclosure not interference with others' consumption? One day, they're grazing their cattle upon a pasture, and the next they're impeded by a fence. What, did you think man fell from the sky one by one and acquired his social nature secondarily?

We have always been individuals and we have been social animals longer than we have been rational. A fence is interference eating the grass is not. Eating the crops someone else is growing is interference so it's proper to fence those off.

With a ratio of about 100-to-Noumena, the libertarians on this site are the Lockean variety, so I can for example predict with great confidence that as long as one first imposes upon others by fencing off part of the commons, you feel he is entitled to impose upon lethally any that should find themselves on the concave side of that fence.

Given a reasonable effort to ensure free movement throughout the world, yes.

What makes an effort reasonable?

Use of reason in its pursuit.

And what happened to the freedom to consume opportunity? Another's ability to traverse one's land is every bit as potential, not one bit more actual, than his ability to graze cattle or simply exist upon it.

There is little to no rivalry in consumption of movement. If you could move across 'your' land and by that act alone prevent others from doing it then you would have the right.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 9:39:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 7:15:12 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:25:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
The cry of a horse? Bestiality, remember? The form of rape you sincerely condone even as you condemn me for hypothetically condoning the rape of humans?

Bestiality is not a form of rape. Neigh means the cry of a horse, nay means no.

No sh!t. And bestiality implies rape when juxtaposed with zoophilia. Or do you mean that it's not rape because animals, from sponge to chimpanzee, don't have rights?

As defined by you, with varying degrees of intuitiveness. The vagina integral to Sally's body is Sally's? I'll buy it. But the area of land Sally has presumed to fence off from others? You might as well grant her the area of land that from the air most resembles her face.

I don't grant her land, people do by general agreement; I grant her the house she built, the car she bought. I grant her the property which is rightfully hers by her own effort.

Effort alone never built anything. Everything requires resources, and all resources originate in the land. That includes not only the woods and metals in the houses and cars, and the spaces they and their factories occupy, but also the foods in the stomachs of their builders, and the places their builders sleep. That the distribution of such necessaries is by "general agreement" is an outlandish (no pun intended) claim for which I await your nonexistent evidence.

I'll try, but I'll require a meaningful distinction. How, for example, is enclosure not interference with others' consumption? One day, they're grazing their cattle upon a pasture, and the next they're impeded by a fence. What, did you think man fell from the sky one by one and acquired his social nature secondarily?

We have always been individuals and we have been social animals longer than we have been rational. A fence is interference eating the grass is not. Eating the crops someone else is growing is interference so it's proper to fence those off.

First of all, this is entirely hypothetical, because that wasn't the order of enclosure; the fence (not to mention violent force), prior to which the land was worked communally (or, alternatively, already privatized by soon-to-be victims of theft), begot the private enterprise, not the other way around. But even if private property had begun with self-reliant frontiersmen, why would their arbitrary contribution of labor oblige their contemporaries and all subsequent generations to permanently observe their negative authority regarding it? The reward doesn't fit the service. And what would stop one from homesteading immense tracts of this finite planet by way of a crop that wasn't its best use but required little labor, perhaps switching to the best use once ownership were established and could be leveraged for cheap labor?

And what happened to the freedom to consume opportunity? Another's ability to traverse one's land is every bit as potential, not one bit more actual, than his ability to graze cattle or simply exist upon it.

There is little to no rivalry in consumption of movement. If you could move across 'your' land and by that act alone prevent others from doing it then you would have the right.

I wasn't referring to movement interfering with movement, I was referring to movement interfering with the activity that you believe warranted the ownership, or, once owned, any utility the owner might choose. I mean, mightn't I insist on privacy once my minimal labor has entitled me permanently to its location? It would certainly be in my interest to at least pretend to value privacy, for then I could demand a fee from the travelers who interrupt it, which I could exchange for any number of things I actually do value.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 9:54:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 9:39:23 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/22/2013 7:15:12 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:25:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
The cry of a horse? Bestiality, remember? The form of rape you sincerely condone even as you condemn me for hypothetically condoning the rape of humans?

Bestiality is not a form of rape. Neigh means the cry of a horse, nay means no.

And bestiality implies rape when juxtaposed with zoophilia.

It does not, why would you juxtapose them? There is enough confusion about terms already.

Or do you mean that it's not rape because animals, from sponge to chimpanzee, don't have rights?

I did not give a justification for why it was not rape I asserted it, just as you asserted it was rape without justification.

As defined by you, with varying degrees of intuitiveness. The vagina integral to Sally's body is Sally's? I'll buy it. But the area of land Sally has presumed to fence off from others? You might as well grant her the area of land that from the air most resembles her face.

I don't grant her land, people do by general agreement; I grant her the house she built, the car she bought. I grant her the property which is rightfully hers by her own effort.

Effort alone never built anything. Everything requires resources, and all resources originate in the land. That includes not only the woods and metals in the houses and cars, and the spaces they and their factories occupy, but also the foods in the stomachs of their builders, and the places their builders sleep. That the distribution of such necessaries is by "general agreement" is an outlandish (no pun intended) claim for which I await your nonexistent evidence.

Distribution of raw materials is never justified beyond first come first serve. When I refer to a system of general agreement for claims I simply mean a rational consistent and equal way to determine the scope and duration of a claim. If I sow a field the crops are mine by my effort, thus seeing as no one can build there without destroying my property I can reasonably claim the land so long as I am using it; and I should not fear that someone tries to build there during winter.

I'll try, but I'll require a meaningful distinction. How, for example, is enclosure not interference with others' consumption? One day, they're grazing their cattle upon a pasture, and the next they're impeded by a fence. What, did you think man fell from the sky one by one and acquired his social nature secondarily?

We have always been individuals and we have been social animals longer than we have been rational. A fence is interference eating the grass is not. Eating the crops someone else is growing is interference so it's proper to fence those off.

First of all, this is entirely hypothetical, because that wasn't the order of enclosure; the fence (not to mention violent force), prior to which the land was worked communally (or, alternatively, already privatized by soon-to-be victims of theft), begot the private enterprise, not the other way around. But even if private property had begun with self-reliant frontiersmen, why would their arbitrary contribution of labor oblige their contemporaries and all subsequent generations to permanently observe their negative authority regarding it? The reward doesn't fit the service. And what would stop one from homesteading immense tracts of this finite planet by way of a crop that wasn't its best use but required little labor, perhaps switching to the best use once ownership were established and could be leveraged for cheap labor?

The history of private property is irrelevant. If you can't harvest the crop it should be considered abandoned.

And what happened to the freedom to consume opportunity? Another's ability to traverse one's land is every bit as potential, not one bit more actual, than his ability to graze cattle or simply exist upon it.

There is little to no rivalry in consumption of movement. If you could move across 'your' land and by that act alone prevent others from doing it then you would have the right.

I wasn't referring to movement interfering with movement, I was referring to movement interfering with the activity that you believe warranted the ownership, or, once owned, any utility the owner might choose. I mean, mightn't I insist on privacy once my minimal labor has entitled me permanently to its location? It would certainly be in my interest to at least pretend to value privacy, for then I could demand a fee from the travelers who interrupt it, which I could exchange for any number of things I actually do value.

You do not have a right to demand a fee for privacy. Close the shutters, they can't get into your house without breaking the door which is your property.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 11:19:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 9:54:55 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:39:23 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/22/2013 7:15:12 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:25:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
As defined by you, with varying degrees of intuitiveness. The vagina integral to Sally's body is Sally's? I'll buy it. But the area of land Sally has presumed to fence off from others? You might as well grant her the area of land that from the air most resembles her face.

I don't grant her land, people do by general agreement; I grant her the house she built, the car she bought. I grant her the property which is rightfully hers by her own effort.

Effort alone never built anything. Everything requires resources, and all resources originate in the land. That includes not only the woods and metals in the houses and cars, and the spaces they and their factories occupy, but also the foods in the stomachs of their builders, and the places their builders sleep. That the distribution of such necessaries is by "general agreement" is an outlandish (no pun intended) claim for which I await your nonexistent evidence.

Distribution of raw materials is never justified beyond first come first serve. When I refer to a system of general agreement for claims I simply mean a rational consistent and equal way to determine the scope and duration of a claim. If I sow a field the crops are mine by my effort, thus seeing as no one can build there without destroying my property I can reasonably claim the land so long as I am using it; and I should not fear that someone tries to build there during winter.

No, rational would be giving the sower the value of his labor, which isn't necessarily positive and is certainly less than the combined value of his labor and the land (i.e. the crop). As for consistency and equality, I'll grant you equality and theoretical consistency (though your examples are quite inconsistent), but as there are any number of possible criteria that are equal and consistent (some of which are even rational!), equality and consistency hardly justifies the one you've adopted.

I'll try, but I'll require a meaningful distinction. How, for example, is enclosure not interference with others' consumption? One day, they're grazing their cattle upon a pasture, and the next they're impeded by a fence. What, did you think man fell from the sky one by one and acquired his social nature secondarily?

We have always been individuals and we have been social animals longer than we have been rational. A fence is interference eating the grass is not. Eating the crops someone else is growing is interference so it's proper to fence those off.

First of all, this is entirely hypothetical, because that wasn't the order of enclosure; the fence (not to mention violent force), prior to which the land was worked communally (or, alternatively, already privatized by soon-to-be victims of theft), begot the private enterprise, not the other way around. But even if private property had begun with self-reliant frontiersmen, why would their arbitrary contribution of labor oblige their contemporaries and all subsequent generations to permanently observe their negative authority regarding it? The reward doesn't fit the service. And what would stop one from homesteading immense tracts of this finite planet by way of a crop that wasn't its best use but required little labor, perhaps switching to the best use once ownership were established and could be leveraged for cheap labor?

The history of private property is irrelevant. If you can't harvest the crop it should be considered abandoned.

(As the first assertion's meaning is unclear, I'll only address the second and assume that as it doesn't explain the first it isn't meant to.) Who are you to tell me what to do with my crop? If the have-nots refuse to cheaply harvest my cornfield, expecting that it will be considered abandoned as a result and they can stake their own claims to it, they'll be sorry to learn that I don't want it harvested, but rather intend it as a hide-and-seek environment for my children. Maybe next year, said have-nots, now a year hungrier, will change their mind, and then maybe I'll coincidentally change mine.

And what happened to the freedom to consume opportunity? Another's ability to traverse one's land is every bit as potential, not one bit more actual, than his ability to graze cattle or simply exist upon it.

There is little to no rivalry in consumption of movement. If you could move across 'your' land and by that act alone prevent others from doing it then you would have the right.

I wasn't referring to movement interfering with movement, I was referring to movement interfering with the activity that you believe warranted the ownership, or, once owned, any utility the owner might choose. I mean, mightn't I insist on privacy once my minimal labor has entitled me permanently to its location? It would certainly be in my interest to at least pretend to value privacy, for then I could demand a fee from the travelers who interrupt it, which I could exchange for any number of things I actually do value.

You do not have a right to demand a fee for privacy. Close the shutters, they can't get into your house without breaking the door which is your property.

Why would just the house be my property? I sowed the field and enjoy the outdoors (especially the breeze on my naked body) besides. It's bad enough you don't respect my right to claim for eternity that which I have removed a tree from so that I can privately frolic more freely, and now you're saying it's not even mine if I drop cheap sh!tseed on it so that I can eat nastya$$ food!? Communist!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 11:37:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 11:19:13 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:54:55 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:39:23 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/22/2013 7:15:12 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/22/2013 6:25:17 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
As defined by you, with varying degrees of intuitiveness. The vagina integral to Sally's body is Sally's? I'll buy it. But the area of land Sally has presumed to fence off from others? You might as well grant her the area of land that from the air most resembles her face.

I don't grant her land, people do by general agreement; I grant her the house she built, the car she bought. I grant her the property which is rightfully hers by her own effort.

Effort alone never built anything. Everything requires resources, and all resources originate in the land. That includes not only the woods and metals in the houses and cars, and the spaces they and their factories occupy, but also the foods in the stomachs of their builders, and the places their builders sleep. That the distribution of such necessaries is by "general agreement" is an outlandish (no pun intended) claim for which I await your nonexistent evidence.

Distribution of raw materials is never justified beyond first come first serve. When I refer to a system of general agreement for claims I simply mean a rational consistent and equal way to determine the scope and duration of a claim. If I sow a field the crops are mine by my effort, thus seeing as no one can build there without destroying my property I can reasonably claim the land so long as I am using it; and I should not fear that someone tries to build there during winter.

No, rational would be giving the sower the value of his labor, which isn't necessarily positive and is certainly less than the combined value of his labor and the land (i.e. the crop). As for consistency and equality, I'll grant you equality and theoretical consistency (though your examples are quite inconsistent), but as there are any number of possible criteria that are equal and consistent (some of which are even rational!), equality and consistency hardly justifies the one you've adopted.

The land is not the crop, the value of the crop is created by the farmer and to the degree that he creates no value his claim has no merit.

That which is not created cannot be owned, cannot be traded; cannot be distributed. A system of claims is not a system of resource ownership but exactly what it sounds like a temporary claim related to the temporary use of said resource.

It in no way undermines or contradicts the absolute respect of true property nor could any rational system of claims ever be engineered to correct the imaginary immorality of economic inequality since a rational system would be first and foremost based on current use not some arbitrary 'who deserves it.'

I'll try, but I'll require a meaningful distinction. How, for example, is enclosure not interference with others' consumption? One day, they're grazing their cattle upon a pasture, and the next they're impeded by a fence. What, did you think man fell from the sky one by one and acquired his social nature secondarily?

We have always been individuals and we have been social animals longer than we have been rational. A fence is interference eating the grass is not. Eating the crops someone else is growing is interference so it's proper to fence those off.

First of all, this is entirely hypothetical, because that wasn't the order of enclosure; the fence (not to mention violent force), prior to which the land was worked communally (or, alternatively, already privatized by soon-to-be victims of theft), begot the private enterprise, not the other way around. But even if private property had begun with self-reliant frontiersmen, why would their arbitrary contribution of labor oblige their contemporaries and all subsequent generations to permanently observe their negative authority regarding it? The reward doesn't fit the service. And what would stop one from homesteading immense tracts of this finite planet by way of a crop that wasn't its best use but required little labor, perhaps switching to the best use once ownership were established and could be leveraged for cheap labor?

The history of private property is irrelevant. If you can't harvest the crop it should be considered abandoned.

(As the first assertion's meaning is unclear, I'll only address the second and assume that as it doesn't explain the first it isn't meant to.) Who are you to tell me what to do with my crop? If the have-nots refuse to cheaply harvest my cornfield, expecting that it will be considered abandoned as a result and they can stake their own claims to it, they'll be sorry to learn that I don't want it harvested, but rather intend it as a hide-and-seek environment for my children. Maybe next year, said have-nots, now a year hungrier, will change their mind, and then maybe I'll coincidentally change mine.

I am the one who will supposedly respect your claim to all those plants. An upper limit on the land you can claim without concessions from others would be rather easily arrived at by dividing the global land area by the global population with a reasonable stipend for parks and reserves (10-20%).

And what happened to the freedom to consume opportunity? Another's ability to traverse one's land is every bit as potential, not one bit more actual, than his ability to graze cattle or simply exist upon it.

There is little to no rivalry in consumption of movement. If you could move across 'your' land and by that act alone prevent others from doing it then you would have the right.

I wasn't referring to movement interfering with movement, I was referring to movement interfering with the activity that you believe warranted the ownership, or, once owned, any utility the owner might choose. I mean, mightn't I insist on privacy once my minimal labor has entitled me permanently to its location? It would certainly be in my interest to at least pretend to value privacy, for then I could demand a fee from the travelers who interrupt it, which I could exchange for any number of things I actually do value.

You do not have a right to demand a fee for privacy. Close the shutters, they can't get into your house without breaking the door which is your property.

Why would just the house be my property? I sowed the field and enjoy the outdoors (especially the breeze on my naked body) besides. It's bad enough you don't respect my right to claim for eternity that which I have removed a tree from so that I can privately frolic more freely, and now you're saying it's not even mine if I drop cheap sh!tseed on it so that I can eat nastya$$ food!? Communist!

You may have sowed the field but that did not create the land, it just created the crops which are only distinguished from natural plants by the work you put into maintaining them there.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:54:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I strongly oppose bestiality, it should be strictly regulate by law and everything our civil service can offer.

If somebody are going to take another HIV from a monkey, I don't think it is fair that the entire human race will have to bear the burden of this disgusting lust.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 11:17:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 11:37:40 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The land is not the crop, the value of the crop is created by the farmer and to the degree that he creates no value his claim has no merit.

I never claimed the land's the crop. The crop is the product of three factors: land, labor and law. For his labor, you would grant the farmer the combined product of his labor, the land he applies it to and the law that prevents others from interfering with such marriage (even to use the land more efficiently!). As for the extreme case of creating no value, that's not what I mean by the value not necessarily being positive; it's possible to create commodity value less than its cost in diminution of land value, and the fact that the land itself is not owned (or at least not unless or until it's used) makes such differential destruction potentially individually rational.

That which is not created cannot be owned, cannot be traded; cannot be distributed. A system of claims is not a system of resource ownership but exactly what it sounds like a temporary claim related to the temporary use of said resource.

No, temporary would be like the Hebrew system of land returning to the commons every 40 years, or the annualism of Parecon. Your system is permanent but conditional, the condition being the meager responsibility to do something, anything, with the land, by labor exploitable because of such permanence or otherwise.

It in no way undermines or contradicts the absolute respect of true property nor could any rational system of claims ever be engineered to correct the imaginary immorality of economic inequality since a rational system would be first and foremost based on current use not some arbitrary 'who deserves it.'

Even if alternatives to capitalism were that arbitrary, and even if "current use" could itself be determined otherwise than arbitrarily (it's not objectively clear, for example, that land abandoned in the winter is currently being used by the previous autumn's harvester, any more than it's objectively clear that land abandoned for 27 years is currently being used by the hosts of the 1986 Halley's Comet party), current use conferring ownership would still be arbitrary and irrational.

I am the one who will supposedly respect your claim to all those plants. An upper limit on the land you can claim without concessions from others would be rather easily arrived at by dividing the global land area by the global population with a reasonable stipend for parks and reserves (10-20%).

So it is written! But some land is valuable and some is not. To grant to the first-comer-by-an-instant eternal first dibs on working the best land and collecting its product is, sorry to say, unreasonable.

You may have sowed the field but that did not create the land, it just created the crops which are only distinguished from natural plants by the work you put into maintaining them there.

Sowing a field alters the land (at least the soil but often the topography as well) and makes it more or less valuable, depending on the seed and the method, just as it alters the flora. If replacing natural flora with unnatural flora entitles one to the land's flora, why shouldn't replacing natural land with unnatural land entitle one to the land?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:34:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 11:17:26 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 11/22/2013 11:37:40 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The land is not the crop, the value of the crop is created by the farmer and to the degree that he creates no value his claim has no merit.

I never claimed the land's the crop. The crop is the product of three factors: land, labor and law. For his labor, you would grant the farmer the combined product of his labor, the land he applies it to and the law that prevents others from interfering with such marriage (even to use the land more efficiently!). As for the extreme case of creating no value, that's not what I mean by the value not necessarily being positive; it's possible to create commodity value less than its cost in diminution of land value, and the fact that the land itself is not owned (or at least not unless or until it's used) makes such differential destruction potentially individually rational.

The land is required to produce the good, but it is neither consumed nor owned. The law is a recognition of justice, nothing is owed for its protection.

It is not my place nor yours to grant the farmer his wages based on his labor. It is only for us to recognize that the crop is his.

That which is not created cannot be owned, cannot be traded; cannot be distributed. A system of claims is not a system of resource ownership but exactly what it sounds like a temporary claim related to the temporary use of said resource.

No, temporary would be like the Hebrew system of land returning to the commons every 40 years, or the annualism of Parecon. Your system is permanent but conditional, the condition being the meager responsibility to do something, anything, with the land, by labor exploitable because of such permanence or otherwise.

If it is conditional it is not necessarily permanent. You may as well say capitalism is a caste system since children may follow the footsteps of their parents.

It in no way undermines or contradicts the absolute respect of true property nor could any rational system of claims ever be engineered to correct the imaginary immorality of economic inequality since a rational system would be first and foremost based on current use not some arbitrary 'who deserves it.'

Even if alternatives to capitalism were that arbitrary, and even if "current use" could itself be determined otherwise than arbitrarily (it's not objectively clear, for example, that land abandoned in the winter is currently being used by the previous autumn's harvester, any more than it's objectively clear that land abandoned for 27 years is currently being used by the hosts of the 1986 Halley's Comet party), current use conferring ownership would still be arbitrary and irrational.

"current use" is no more arbitrary than anything else and you know it. That is the premise behind a system but the system would not entertain a post hoc evaluation of any random claim. Remember there is only a need to decide between two claimants if their proposed use is mutually exclusive.

A few simple rules and things become quite easily judged. First come first serve, existing claim/use beats new claim/use, claims made by more beat those made by less.

Don't tell me something silly like "that would never work" something extremely analogous (although far less organized and more violent at times) was indeed how the planet was claimed.

I am the one who will supposedly respect your claim to all those plants. An upper limit on the land you can claim without concessions from others would be rather easily arrived at by dividing the global land area by the global population with a reasonable stipend for parks and reserves (10-20%).

So it is written! But some land is valuable and some is not. To grant to the first-comer-by-an-instant eternal first dibs on working the best land and collecting its product is, sorry to say, unreasonable.

Why?

You may have sowed the field but that did not create the land, it just created the crops which are only distinguished from natural plants by the work you put into maintaining them there.

Sowing a field alters the land (at least the soil but often the topography as well) and makes it more or less valuable, depending on the seed and the method, just as it alters the flora. If replacing natural flora with unnatural flora entitles one to the land's flora, why shouldn't replacing natural land with unnatural land entitle one to the land?

If it entitled you to anything it would be the topsoil.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 4:35:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 4:54:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I strongly oppose bestiality, it should be strictly regulate by law and everything our civil service can offer.

If somebody are going to take another HIV from a monkey, I don't think it is fair that the entire human race will have to bear the burden of this disgusting lust.

So you think if some activity led to HIV being introduced to humanity then it should be banned for all time?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:17:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 4:35:16 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/23/2013 4:54:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I strongly oppose bestiality, it should be strictly regulate by law and everything our civil service can offer.

If somebody are going to take another HIV from a monkey, I don't think it is fair that the entire human race will have to bear the burden of this disgusting lust.

So you think if some activity led to HIV being introduced to humanity then it should be banned for all time?

of course, unless you know for sure that it is no longer a threat. Let's say if you know that some school boy had use a gun to kill his classmate, would you allow any school boy to hold a gun freely?

When it come to potentially dangerous object, security take precedence over personal liberty.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 11:54:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 11:17:19 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 11/23/2013 4:35:16 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/23/2013 4:54:25 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I strongly oppose bestiality, it should be strictly regulate by law and everything our civil service can offer.

If somebody are going to take another HIV from a monkey, I don't think it is fair that the entire human race will have to bear the burden of this disgusting lust.

So you think if some activity led to HIV being introduced to humanity then it should be banned for all time?

of course, unless you know for sure that it is no longer a threat. Let's say if you know that some school boy had use a gun to kill his classmate, would you allow any school boy to hold a gun freely?

When it come to potentially dangerous object, security take precedence over personal liberty.

I see. What would you say if I told you HIV was introduced into the human population by eating undercooked monkey meat?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.