Blotter updated: 06/17/12Show/Hide Show All

Image

Tag History
(edit info)
Rating

Prev | Index | Next

Comments

Ponymaru
#142193
1 year ago
... I dun get it.
Anonymous
#142194
1 year ago
My thoughts exactly.
PynkyPy
#142197
1 year ago
I think that was the porn pic that was just up.
sandstormzach
#142198
1 year ago
That awesome pic of twilight and trixie got deleted.
Anonymous
#142200
1 year ago
^^ It was a NSFW pic that someone posted. It was awesome, but it was removed.
Skipta
#142202
1 year ago
You're doing a Vader over a rule-breaking porn image being deleted? Really?
sandstormzach
#142203
1 year ago
And I agree with spike entirely.
Anonymous
#142206
1 year ago
It was a pretty hot pic. I'd be disappointed too, if I hadn't gotten the chance to see it.
PynkyPy
#142208
1 year ago
Whay would he be interested? Rarity wasn't in it.
Anonymous
#142209
1 year ago
Yes, someone posted porn.

It wasn't very good but furries love them some porn regardless of the quality so you get comments like the above.

And now there's this chump lamenting the deletion of their porn.
feather
#142211
1 year ago
as eco has stated, at least until filtering is enabled, straigt out porn will be deleted. If you want pony porn just go to Rule 34.
PynkyPy
#142212
1 year ago
It's up on R34. Just look at it there! That's where it's supposed to be.
Jackalovski
#142217
1 year ago
Any one else notice that the more explicit an image, the more badly it's drawn?
Anonymous
#142222
1 year ago
I think it's just a funny reaction pic. Somepony obviously should take things at face value more often. (looks smug)
feather
#142223
1 year ago
@jackalovski because the more likely a person is to want to draw porn, the more likely they are to be a terrible artist. unless they're drawing it for money.
PynkyPy
#142224
1 year ago
Not really, There are some good explicit artists. Megasweet for one. All his lesbian kissing pics.
Anonymous
#142229
1 year ago
the day porn is allowed is the day the site is replaced with pornibooru. I hope it's soon. It'll be amazing to watch the legit submissions drop and the porn pile the fuck up.

we've already seen some previews of the porn dumps on the horizon.
Skipta
#142230
1 year ago
Not as a strict connection to it being Explicit, Jackalovski (Plenty of well drawn R34 of stuff, sometimes even higher quality than the style of whatever show it's based on). I'd say it's more to do with such a minuscule portion of the fandom going anything other than "Ew, no thanks" when they see something actually pornographic, so there's therefore fewer artists for it as well. Also a lot of it is requests in "something-Chan" threads, so they're often quickly drawn.
Anonymous
#142231
1 year ago
I wouldn't call kissing explicit.

Megasweet has done a few pretty hot pics, though. I particularly liked that one with a tied up dash and facesitting Pinkamena.
Anonymous
#142232
1 year ago
0r0ch1 is a good explicit artist. His stuff manages to be kinda gross, explicit and fucking adorable all at the same time. Remember that Scootabuse pic with the car battery and Dash?
sandstormzach
#142234
1 year ago
I knew the pic was gonna be deleted. I'm fine with it. It was good while it lasted, though, and a nice overreaction is always funny.
Skipta
#142239
1 year ago
Also isn't Megasweet usually pretty tame? All I remember seeing from him is humanizations with exposed breasts and such, so that's not really much at all. Also it's quite often done humorously. I wouldn't really see that as very Explicit, just questionable. *Braeburn Shrug (I really want to find an image of him doing it, is there one?)* :)
Anonymous
#142242
1 year ago
Furthermore, liking these explicit pics does not nesessarily equate to being a furry. They're depictions of fictional characters, which happen to be ponies, with which the viewer is usually expected to assosiate with on some level, for there to be an emotional bond and for the story to have an effect. Yes, that doesn't mean it's always the case, but in most stories it is. That and the artist of that particular pic was quite a bit more skilled than most of the posters here! In my opinion, ofcourse, I can't draw for shit.
Skipta
#142243
1 year ago
What overreaction, Sandstorm? We added the tag, posted some random comments and came here and just said "Uh, why is this a surprise at all?".
JackOfAllTrades
#142247
1 year ago
R34 is way too slow and I find the ads really annoying. No thanks. I'll try E621.
sandstormzach
#142256
1 year ago
@ Skipta
I was referring to Spike's "NOOOOOO!!" in the pic for the overreaction.
Anonymous
#142261
1 year ago
Skipta: MLP is one of the fastest growing segments of R34, ever, including things with a vastly larger fanbase. Furries draw a fucking assload of MLP porn. It's goddamn insane.

#142242 yes liking that does mean you're a furry. No not being able to draw doesn't mean that piece of porn was any less bad.
Anonymous
#142268
1 year ago
Ok..... pic description please?
I'm going to E621 for the catch.
Skipta
#142271
1 year ago
Anon242, I say this as someone with nothing against [non-IRL-creepy] furries and with my own share of deviant fetishes a-plenty: If you like the R34 pics in a sexual way then you're probably just being defensive. It's actually "worse" if you're physically attracted to the pictures and don't consider yourself a furry, since then it'd be zoophilic (in ""s because I don't mind).

I have plenty of emotional bond with a lot of different characters and I don't find erotic because of it. Ponies are among them. I don't really know where you're coming from either, since no one was "accusing" you of Furrydom (which makes it seem even more defensive). Although that may've changed in the comments in between posting.
feather
#142272
1 year ago
as jackofalltrades said, e621 works as well. I don't see that we ever need to allow porn, really.
Skipta
#142277
1 year ago
@Sandstorm: Ah, okay, my bad. Just had in mind that you fav'd the porn picture.

@Anon261: Ugh. *Facehoof* ..That is all I have to say about that. *Steers clear of Pornographic furry sites....as if that had been a challenge prior to that!*
Anonymous
#142280
1 year ago
What image is being discussed here? Is it the Twilight/Trixie one that I came across not long ago?

Speaking for myself, every once in a while I come across a somewhat explicit image of a FiM character that I find appealing sexually. I assume it's due to my being quote fond of the personality of said character, helped along by the fact they really don't look like real-world animals at all.

To each their own, though.
Anonymous
#142281
1 year ago
you don't mind bestiality?

I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and guess there's an unspoken caveat about them doing it for reals.

right?
Skipta
#142295
1 year ago
@Anon281: Nope, I don't give half a shit about non-abusive Zoophilia, including in real life. That's their business. I don't consider an "Ick"-factor to be a relevant point against anything ever since laws should always be based on objective reasoning. You also say "give me the benefit of the doubt" like I'd care if someone I don't know disagrees with me because "Ew, gross!".
Anonymous
#142303
1 year ago
Wait so you're okay with people fucking their dogs etc. IRL?
TamaraPeluso
#142304
1 year ago
futhar more a derp dee derp a derpah derp
Skipta
#142314
1 year ago
That's what I said. None of my business.

Why wouldn't I be?
Anonymous
#142343
1 year ago
How about because it's a horrible thing for the animals that does significant psychological harm? How about because every significant rescue, shelter, animal welfare and veterinarian group is against it? It's not like there is even a possibility of consent. They are incapable of it.

Why are you okay with this?
Skipta
#142478
1 year ago
I said non-Abusive, so you need to learn to read. Once again "every significant X" means "those that agree with me" and not "serious research and studies" and among those groups you're only actually dealing with abusive cases anyway so they're both biased and irrelevant to the point in question. Them being incapable of consent is a mere assertion of yours without actual evidence and is highly circumstantial in every case it's claimed (Would you say that, since you mentioned them, dogs are "incapable of consent" if a woman is blinded, tied down and not encouraging it in any manner, yet it mounts her and thus commits "bestiality"? That's just fucking crazy of you, if you seriously believe that).

Flimsy pretext trying to legitimize a purely emotional law, you so oatmeal. FYI, in my country it actually is legal provided there's no harm done, so I'm not some crazy wing nut. There simply isn't sufficient reason to justify legal action, nor do I consider it a moral dilemma. Protip: I guarantee that the majority of politicians voting on the issue are not sucking dog cock. They vote based on real evidence.

Also know that Zoophiles are in general extremely harsh in their opinion of actual abusive bestialists, as the serious lovers of animals they are. You probably care way less about any possible abusers than they do. Making them all skulk around the darkness like the "worst of the worst" (which of course will happen due to social implications anyway) only bogs down the legal system in swiftly purging us from abusers since they have to deal with non-abusive nonsense just as seriously.

I don't see why it's so wrong for me to not give a shit.
Anonymous
#142571
1 year ago
look at all those words you wrote in defense of dog rapists, dismissing even the opinions of veterinary associations and the evidence of countless rescues around the world. look at them. holy shit.

These are legitimate cases of animal abuse and you are fucking ignoring them because it's convenient to you. Shit, how the hell do you know that "are in general extremely harsh in their opinion of actual abusive bestialists"?

How can have the fucking GALL to argue from the position that everything is capable of consent and that one must provide evidence that it CAN'T?
Skipta
#142613
1 year ago
Good job not reading a single word I read. Read or I'll just ignore you. I'm not defending abusers at all, you're trying to argue against a strawman that I myself beat on in my post. You fail hard.

That is also not my position on consent (again, good job not reading a single word). I provided an example that was, on purpose, free from human interaction yet entirely believable from the animal's perspective and how it's inane of you to just use such a blanket statement as if it were a matter of fact and not simply an assertion of yours.
Skipta
#142620
1 year ago
*"Good job not reading a single word I wrote." Obviously. Slipped when retyping that bit.
Anonymous
#142762
1 year ago
I did Skipta. You dropped every piece of evidence against fucking animals, even that from professionals in fields directly affected by it. Called them "biased" for only dealing with cases of abuse(which is pretty convenient since raping your dog kinda is abuse), or that I've cherry-picked them somehow, when you yourself have gone far out of your way to pick the one situation where that an animal incapable of giving consent is irrelevant: when the person can't either.

But perhaps you consider instinctive actions to be consent(a really fucking dangerous idea). Fine. Let me add a single word; informed consent. On that topic, saying that I must somehow provide proof that the animal has not consented requires that the animal is capable of consent. That IS your position in that post and claiming it wasn't is a bold-faced lie.

You've done everything you can to muddy the argument, including accusing me of somehow straw-manning in arguing against what you've posted. You beat no straw men in your posts besides those you have constructed in my image. You have simply dismissed all evidence against your position, including that from medical professionals, and you did so while using the same form of argument you were dismissing("most animal-welfare groups" v "most zoophiles").

As for the laws of your country, I suppose from your name you must be in Europe. I can sort of understand not having jail time involved if, like New Zealand, you look at it from a public health angle. Does your country at least have some kind of psychological help available to zoophiles?
Anonymous
#142781
1 year ago
Skipta, you're trying to differentiate between non-abusive zoophiles and abusive zoophiles. I've got a pro tip for you: if you're fucking your dog, you're abusing it. The distinction you're trying to make doesn't exist. So,

STOP FUCKING DOGS.
Skipta
#142916
1 year ago
@Anon762: I reject your bullshit axiom of "it's always rape" since it's silly and unfounded. You can't just repeat something into being true. I reject the argument of "professionals in fields directly affected by it" because it is an Argument from fallacious Authority and holds no water what-so-ever. Let me provide you with an analogy (which you will probably find offensive, but it's still descriptive):

I say humans should be allowed to have sex with each other under the law. You say "But what about the wifebeating rapists!? There are shelters for battered women that say that's a bad thing!". I say "..But I'm clearly not speaking in defense of that and even those sexually active you're vehemently opposed to are even stronger in their opposition to it!". You say "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SHELTERS THAT SAY IT'S BAAAAAAAD!!?!?".

That is exactly what you're saying. They are biased in the argument and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because they simply are. You haven't demonstrated any relevance to the point what-so-ever.

I NEVER said the situation was one where "The human couldn't consent either", it was to remove the factor of human coercion, you nitwit. You're ignoring the entire point of it just to keep on pretending that "All animals are retarded puppets with absolutely no input or will of their own" is taken for granted as a Truth.

You haven't provided -any- evidence. You're just asserting your opinions as facts. Then pretend that lots of people agreeing with you = you're correct. Quit fucking lying about what I've said, please. I never presented any point of "Animal Welfare groups vs. Zoophiles" nor did I frame the consent-issue as such. You've got your view completely backwards. You're making the claim, so you need to establish that they aren't capable of consent in order to make the claim that they do not as a matter of fact. You're also pretending that animals are the same as people. They aren't and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that distinction in matters such as these ("informed" etc.). I also presume that you're not a Vegan, since most people aren't. So you think fucking is horribly evil, but murder is a-okay. Good to have your priorities straight, you dreadful hypocrite. :)

And no, it's just legal. End of. The only laws we have on it is to protect the well-being of the animal. If there is abuse then the criminal gets judged as would other abusers of animals. The same is true for most of the region.
Anonymous
#142919
1 year ago
Sometimes I love the comments. XD
BK_Leonidas
#143132
1 year ago
^Indeed. And I'm with those who were the first to post. This is my reaction to whenever something remotely pornographic gets removed from Ponibooru. I get why the mods would do it but it just kind of makes the whole questionable and explicit system "kind of" pointless
Anonymous
#143290
1 year ago
>I reject your bullshit axiom of "it's always rape" since it's silly and unfounded.
Then you reject reality. Animals are incapable of informed consent. It is rape by definition, it is rape in its effects, it is rape. Stop raping animals.

>Argument from fallacious Authority
Argument from authority is only a fallacy if you claim the authority itself to be infallible. I do not. If you manage to find anyone with similar experience and knowledge in this field to outright contradict them then hey maybe you have a case.

>You say "But what about the wife-beating rapists!?
No, I say Pedophiles are bad and it's a bad thing. Your analogy presumes or at the very least implies animals are capable of informed consent. They are not.

>They are biased in the argument and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because they simply are.
Studies on the effects of bestiality on animals and humans are biased because they study the effects of bestiality on humans and animals. Beautiful.

>I never said the situation was one where "The human couldn't consent either"
You're right, I said that, because it's true. Removing someone's ability to say "no" makes them saying "yes" meaningless. It is rape.

>You haven't provided -any- evidence.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20053199843.html
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a903639759
http://tcr.sagepub.com/content/1/3/317.short

But apparently the scientific world doesn't matter to you, so let's take a page from your book. Prove a dog can consent.

I'll wait.

>Quit fucking lying about what I've said
I did not and have not.

>I never presented any point of
You dismissed an argument and then used a similar one. That is what that meant.

>You need to establish that they aren't capable of consent
There is no data indicating a dog is capable of informed consent, all behavior studies have shown that dogs are incapable of thinking on this level. If you know of any studies saying otherwise, please feel free to provide it.

>You're pretending that animals are the same as people
I'm saying that animals are not people, that they have little in the way of advanced reasoning capacity, do not communicate in a fashion that is readily understandable by humanity, and cannot reasonably be considered the same thing as people. You, sir, are the one comparing them to battered wives, or otherwise beings capable of giving informed consent.

>I also presume that you're not a Vegan, since most people aren't. So you think fucking is horribly evil, but murder is a-okay. Good to have your priorities straight, you dreadful hypocrite. :)
Animals aren't people and I'm not the one pretending they are.

>So you think fucking is horribly evil
I think rape is pretty bad.

>And no, it's just legal.
It's sad that there is no help available to them. :(
Anonymous
#143300
1 year ago
#143132

Rule34.paheal.net has all the pony porn you could ever want. In fact, I suspect it has pretty much ALL the pony porn. Some of it's pretty funny! Go wild!

Also because the deletable content has pretty much its own category of censor square does not mean the system is pointless.
Anonymous
#143617
1 year ago
So much drama... Friendship is magic, people.
I honestly though that I wouldn't find such arguments here, but eh, I guess I'd been foolish to think otherwise.
Anonymous
#143704
1 year ago
I wasn't expecting porn to last here, so I don't look for it.
Skipta
#143736
1 year ago
>Blah blah blah more asserting as Universal Truth that which is merely unproven opinion. "Stop raping animals".

I never started, Mr I'm-Trying-To-Ad-Hominem. I have never had sex with an animal in my life, but not that it matters at all. You two are just repeating that like a mantra like it's going to shame me into tacitly agreeing with you (which of course is the entire point). I won't and you're being silly.

>You're right, I said that, because it's true. Removing someone's ability to say "no" makes them saying "yes" meaningless. It is rape.

Wow, you really are thick. Stop ignoring the actual point of that piece of text. It was purely there to PREVENT you from going on irrelevant tangents (which is the only thing you seem capable of). Even if she was there wanting it, having undressed and not being restrained in any manner, the point was solely that your conception of it as always rape instigated by the human is just absurd. But now that I've phrased it as such, because you're being a retard, you're obviously going to start going on about how it now is the human coercing the animal or some shit when actually the original proposition is no less valid nor implies anything about her consent (I obviously didn't intend to write it as her being raped. You're being a disingenuous ass. Ever heard of safe words? Sheesh.).

>Links

Yeah, no, I'm not about to pay 60 euros to look at some "studies" of "attitudes of philosophers and society being discussed", you moron. Still haven't provided any actual evidence and those don't seem like strong arguments. Especially since the latter study was conducted in a nation where it's simply a crime and therefore admits to itself that most of it's information comes from criminal proceedings.

>But apparently the scientific world doesn't matter to you, so let's take a page from your book. Prove a dog can consent. I'll wait.

You're an idiot. That's why. I don't think the scientific world matters because I continuously demand that you provide some fucking evidence? Fucking Science, how do they work.

>Studies on the effects of bestiality on animals and humans are biased because they study the effects of bestiality on humans and animals. Beautiful.

Here you go just blatantly LYING again. I wasn't talking about anything of the sort. You didn't quote any fucking "studies", you were just going on irrelevant rants about "Well-fare workers". You have to demonstrate their relevance to what I'm actually talking about and stop making up your fucking strawmen, you disingenuous retard.

>It's only fallacious if you claim they are infallible.

No it isn't. That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Also good job at completely ignoring why it's utterly irrelevant in either case.

Good job ignoring the actual analogy directed at your previous point with the humans. You apparently ALWAYS ignore what the fuck something is actually meant to say and nitpick anything peripheral to pretend that you've answered it. Pathetic.

>You, sir, are the one comparing them to battered wives

No I'm not, you moron. That wasn't at all that point. Again, completely directed at your use of irrelevant "Authorities" to argue from. What I was saying with that latter bit, however, is that there's nothing mistaken about setting different levels for "informed consent" when the standards you're talking about are explicitly created for humans (IE you -are- trying to pretend they're people). If you seriously can't tell the difference between such emotional extremes as an animal being "raped" or it consenting then I also suspect you've never owned an animal in your life or you're the worst master ever.

>I think rape is pretty bad.

So you either you think that killing animals for meat should be criminalized or you're okay with legalizing murder but think rape (from your definition) is sufficiently worse to justify criminalizing it. Again, your priorities are totally not screwed up at all, because you can't really hold both those beliefs at the same time without being a hypocrite just basing things on an Ick factor.

>It's sad that there is no help available to them. :(

So you define "help" as being forced into institutions by the state as opposed to the horrible "sadness" of having a state-funded psychologist available and so forth? This isn't the U.S.A., we have socialized medicine. You're also very condescending considering most are neither abusers nor extraordinarily psychologically damaged. You have a warped perspective, as noted previously, because all you think of when you hear it are horrible abusive cases in the courts etc. Get off of your high horse. The instances of voluntary zoophilic encounters at some point during pre-puberty and puberty for humans are about 3% for women and 5% for men, it's not some obscure "eye socket fucking" fetish, it's fairly common as far as perversions come. Note that those statistics are real-life, since I do not count the prevalence of non-Zoophile targeted porn online, since that's usually only geared at the Humiliation-fetishists.

Anyhow, you're probably going to continue with your nonsense of ignoring everything I originally said and nitpick some tiny part of grammar that you can then construe into some vivid strawman fantasy, so this will probably be abandoned by me fairly soon.
Skipta
#143757
1 year ago
And before you even go there, because I know you will since you always find anything aside from the actual points to rant about:

"That's wrong, therefore you are an idiot" is not an Ad Hominem.

"You're and idiot, therefore you are wrong" is.
Skipta
#143759
1 year ago
*You're an idiot, therefore
Anonymous
#144328
1 year ago
>Mr I'm-Trying-To-Ad-Hominem
You're not wrong because you fuck animals, you're wrong because available evidence supports another conclusion.

>You're being a disingenuous ass.
I addressed this, actually, because I realized you might consider the dog's instinctive actions to be indicative of consent. I rephrased to "informed consent" so you would not be able to drive the incest/pedophilia/dog-fucking truck through the admittedly large gap left with just "consent." though I seem to have missed a few instances. Oh well.

As an aside, how is the restrained woman going to stop the dog's humping with a just word? The world's best trainers don't have the ability to do that, fucking things is instinctive and physical intervention is required.

>Yeah, no
I linked three articles on various aspects of the issue, but fine.

Fine. Let's pretend they are irrelevant for a moment. You live in a country where it is legal, and appear to know something about the subject. Do you have any papers, any papers at all, that support your position? If you can even give me the name it is likely that I can find it. Language is no issue. If you can find even ONE, then with your perspective you have won. ONE. Good luck.

>You're an idiot. That's why.
I have provided evidence and you dismissed it out of hand based purely on the abstract or its source country.

>irrelevant rants about "Well-fare workers"
Animal Welfare workers, yes. One of many sources of data on the detrimental effects of bestiality on animals.

If your only argument is that A TRUE SCOTSMAN wouldn't rape the sheep, then you should probably provide some evidence that the TRUE SCOTSMAN even exists.

>No it isn't. That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. Also good job at completely ignoring why it's utterly irrelevant in either case.
It is not irrelevant simply because you want it to be, and the only way this could be considered a fallacious argument from authority is if you believe that pointing at any evidence gathered by persons other than you is such an argument from authority. By the way, good job using one earlier when pointing at your politicians.

>Good job ignoring the actual analogy
Your analogy was awful and I addressed it in that post.

>So... you're okay with legalizing murder
Slaughtering an animal is not the same as abusing them throughout their life.

>...we have socialized medicine.
Oh! I brought up New Zealand and the health angle in that other post, when you said it "And no, it's just legal. End of." I took that to mean the mental health aspects were not addressed. It's good to hear that they are.

>most are neither abusers nor extraordinarily psychologically damaged.
I'd like to know how you know that. Also, rape is abuse.

>The instances of voluntary zoophilic encounters at some point during pre-puberty and puberty for humans are about 3% for women and 5% for men
Do yo happen to have a link to this study? Or a name at least?

>fairly common
Rate of occurrence is not an excuse for harmful behavior.

>nitpick some tiny part
Your argument is composed entirely of tiny parts that don't support each other very well and you simply reject any information contrary to your position without actually addressing it.

You are defending bestiality as some non-harmful past-time of love and joy when it is the manipulation of a lesser creature for the purposes of recreational sex and poses serious issues for the long-term health and psychology of the animal. These are not people. Fucking your dog confuses them at the least and bad things can happen when a dog is confused.
Anonymous
#144349
1 year ago
You`re both idiots for arguing about this on a fucking pony booru, and that`s the end of that.

On the subject, I`d gladly fuck a non-human that I found physically attractive, provided it shared an more-or-less equivalent level of intelligence. In fact I`d almost prefer it, since (as the two of you have proven here) humans are FUCKING IDIOTS.
Anonymous
#144542
1 year ago
I suppose you're right. He's not going to genuinely consider the notion that animal fuckin' is harmful to the animal. It's just thread-shitting at this point.
Skipta
#149119
1 year ago
>Do you have any papers, any papers at all, that support your position? If you can even give me the name it is likely that I can find it. Language is no issue. If you can find even ONE, then with your perspective you have won. ONE. Good luck.
>Do yo happen to have a link to this study? Or a name at least?

I tried to go to the library to check out the book I had in mind on the subject to list the references, but they were closed today and won't open until Tuesday because of some crap to do with the National Day. I'll see if I recall it by then (though you'll probably take this as some cop-out, like I made up the silly National holiday *Rolls eyes*).

>I have provided evidence and you dismissed it out of hand based purely on the abstract or its source country.

No, I dismiss it because you seriously expect me to pay 60 euros to get the privilege of seeing if it's irrelevant bullshit or not. That is absurd.

>If your only argument is that A TRUE SCOTSMAN wouldn't rape the sheep

No, you're still arguing with a STRAWMAN. The cases the services you're citing deal with are the cases that ARE STILL ILLEGAL AND I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE. Therefore they are IRRELEVANT. Repeat this as if it were my position one more time and I will ignore that rambling as well, as I have abandoned many other lines of yours since you're clearly misunderstanding me on purpose in them (or you're genuinely an idiot, it's not like I have anything to compare this to).

>By the way, good job using one earlier when pointing at your politicians.

No, I wasn't. At no point did I say it was moral because they said so and they're "the Authority". Clearly I don't give a shit what whatever country you live in thinks. They're just sane enough not to vote according to your opinion.

>Slaughtering an animal is not the same as abusing them throughout their life.

So you actually do believe that murder is less of a crime than rape (however frequent). Do you not see how fucked up that is? I certainly know I much prefer being alive than let that be what happened.

>Rate of occurrence is not an excuse for harmful behavior.

I would agree, if that had been my point. I did not mean to imply that, merely to shine a light upon it not being as obscure as you probably think.
Anonymous
#149400
1 year ago
>they were closed
I got nothing but time.

>I dismiss it because you seriously expect me to pay 60 euros to get the privilege of seeing if it's irrelevant bullshit or not.
Write down the names and check your library when it opens, they should have access to databases of scholarly papers.

>Therefore they are IRRELEVANT.
The crux of my post was this: If you have some evidence that a TRUE ZOOPHILE can fuck a dog without doing significant harm, post it. I understand how that can be confusing.

>At no point did I say it was moral because they said so and they're "the Authority"
I used the collective reasoning and evidence gathered by just about every veterinarian/rescue/etc as evidence fucking dogs is harmful. You used your politicians as evidence that your laws are just(and thus that my position is wrong). This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, but IS hypocritical.

>So you actually do believe
Haha, no. I believe giving an animal a lifetime of abuse is worse than giving an animal a lifetime of not-abuse followed by a quick death.

>I would agree, if that had been my point. I did not mean to imply that, merely to shine a light upon it not being as obscure as you probably think.
You should still agree, and I guess the source is the book you were thinking of earlier in your post? I can wait, don't worry.