Jump to content

Delima's latest nonsense - NSFW content


Delima
 Share

Your moral view on it ?  

104 members have voted

  1. 1. Your moral view on it ?

    • Absolutely wrong
    • Nothing wrong
    • Nothing wrong as long as consensual
    • Still wrong, despite consensual


Recommended Posts

Well - yet another sexuality post  :iamatwat:

 

Bestiality : Sexual activity between a person and an animal

Zoophilia : A sexual attraction to animals

 

I see nothing wrong in bestiality, as long as it is not rape.

 

I also see nothing wrong in zoophilia.

 

Fire away, Kaizero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Alan Shearer 9

WHy don't you just take your "wacky" sense of humour and get out of town. Your type isn't welcome round these parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WHy don't you just take your "wacky" sense of humour and get out of town. Your type isn't welcome round these parts.

 

It is not humour. It is serious.

 

Do you know who is Peter Singer ? He is a famous contemporary philosopher who is a professor in the Princeton University.

 

He explains his position on bestiality. Here is a discussion on his views :

 

http://www.upc-online.org/010422bestiality.html

 

Bestiality: Animal Liberation or Human License?

 

"Heavy Petting," by Peter Singer, www.Nerve.com, March 12, 2001. Dearest Pet: On Bestiality by Midas Dekkers. 2000. London and New York: Verso. First published 1994.

By Karen Davis, PhD

 

In March, Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation (1975, 1990), published a startling book review essay, "Heavy Petting," in the online sex magazine Nerve. Singer's essay was prompted by Dutch writer Midas Dekkers' controversial book Dearest Pet: On Bestiality. Dearest Pet takes us on a journey of human sexual interest in and use of nonhuman animals as documented in art, literature, court records, personal confessions, veterinary files, and popular culture through history up to the present. Dekkers forces us to look at some old things in a new way. He says, for instance, that since the God of the Christians, like Zeus of the Olympians, once descended in the form of a bird to know a woman-the story of Leda and the Swan and the story of the Virgin Mary being visited by the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove--Christianity "is founded on bestiality" (9). Of the perennial sexual abuse of farmed animals, Dekkers says that girls "have less opportunity than boys, if only because almost all animals are of their own sex: cows, ewes, sows, chickens, nanny-goats" (137), and that "Since animal abuse has been institutionalized in our society in the food industry, it cannot be difficult for sadism to find satisfaction" (147). Dekkers does not argue that human imposed sex with farmed animals per se is sadism; however, any sex with small animals such as chickens and rabbits, he says, "automatically involves sadism" (146). In addition to sexual abuse of small animals, Dekkers documents severe internal injuries that have been diagnosed in cows and calves as a result of their being raped by men using everything from their own bodies to pitchforks (126). He documents men getting revenge on female farmed animals who refuse their advances, showing another aspect of the link between nonconsensual sex and human violence. He cites a French farmer "who thought that many of his chickens and turkeys were dying in suspicious circumstances" (126). He persuades us that such circumstances may not be uncommon.

 

Even while noting that the sex life of domestic animals is "completely organized by human beings" (178), raising the question of whether the consent of a domestic animal is ever possible under any circumstances, desire notwithstanding, Dekkers says that "as long as none of those involved suffers pain, no form of sex should be seen as pathological, bad or mad" (148).

 

In his essay, Peter Singer is almost as equivocal as Dekkers is, though both seem to agree that whatever may or may not be wrong with it, the central issue in any sexual encounter between humans and other creatures is whether it involves cruelty, meaning coercion and/or infliction of physical pain and bodily harm, regardless of who the perpetrator is. Singer's suggestion that interspecies sex, whether initiated by humans or nonhumans, could conceivably be moral and mutually satisfying, raised a furor among many animal advocates. Some insisted that Singer should be exiled from the modern movement of which he is the "father"; others demanded that he step down as head of The Great Ape Project. While philosophy professor, Tom Regan, of North Carolina State University and the author of The Case for Animal Rights (1983), argued in the Raleigh News & Observer (April 3) that the morality of bodily contact cannot be reduced to issues of pain and pleasure alone, as Singer's utilitarian ethics might imply, the two main grievances advanced by animal advocates on the Internet were that Singer in publishing his shameless essay discredits our movement in the eyes of the public, and that nonhuman animals are not in a position to give informed consent either by virtue of other species' presumed inherent intellectual inferiority to humans or by virtue of the built-in constraints of captivity: the limited options, inability to escape, physical coercion, and psychological pressure that captivity imposes on a captive individual. I argued the latter in a letter published in The Village Voice, April 10, p. 6. Not only is it the height of arrogance to reduce the rest of creation to the level of planetary idiocy and human childhood; it's absurd. Adult nonhuman animals, from gorillas to guinea fowl, negotiate complex environments every day. They form adult relationships with their peers. They raise and teach their young. They socialize, provide nurturing, and groom themselves and each other (in birds it's called preening). As functional adults, nonhuman animals perform a multiplicity of cognitive acts, including practical decision-making, that are not exhibited by human children or the mentally impaired. Fair pleading demands that we stop "defending" other animals from ourselves by calling them "dumb."

 

Just as Peter Singer predicted in "Dearest Pet," the primary mainstream objection to bestiality, and to his essay, if the The New Republic and National Review Online are representative, is that sex between humans and nonhumans, regardless of the circumstances in which it occurs including rape, is "an offence to our status and dignity as human beings (5)." For Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online the red flag is any suggestion that "humans ain't nothing special" ("Peter Singer Strikes Again," March 8). She seemed more threatened by the prospect of shared speciality and by Singer's use of four-letter words than by what he had to say about what hens are put through by the egg industry-the institutionalized assault they endure so nonvegetarians can eat their eggs--and about the sexual assaults some hens have been forced to undergo from an animal whose hands are as big as a hen's entire body. Likewise Peter Berkowitz of the The New Republic (March 8) complained that for Singer, it appeared that "the only consideration we need bear in mind in using animals to satisfy our sexual desire is whether we are causing cruelty," as if to say that cruelty (or at least cruelty to animals, like animals themselves in his view) amounts to little more than a pesky footnote in the ethical account of humanity. Berkowitz seemed far more aggrieved by the idea that other creatures have a dignity that links us to them than by the cruelty we impose on them without a shred of compassion or restraint, which is exactly how hens are treated by the egg industry in the case that Singer cited to show how deeply woven into the fabric of human life human obscenity really is.

 

Most people who "raise" animals and who eat them and the products of their bodies, including their young, do so with no more remorse towards their victims than the acknowledged hen rapist feels towards his victim. This connection makes bestiality a core moral issue. From animal agriculture to zoos, the core of our relationship with the animals we use is our invasion of their sexual privacy and our physical manipulation of their sex, reproductive, and family lives. Historically, animal agriculture has facilitated bestiality, not simply because of the proximity of farmed animals, but because controlling other creatures' bodies invites this extension of a license that has already been taken. Humans engage in oral intercourse with unconsenting nonhuman animals every time they put a piece of an animal's body inside their mouth. Partly as a result of such eating, people over 50 with enough money in Western culture will soon be, if they aren't already, walking around with half their internal organs having been taken by force from creatures they think it demeaning of our species to have sex with. Instead of trivializing the case for animal rights or seeking to degrade humans, as some have asserted, Peter Singer's essay on bestiality helps to make the banality of what is truly bad as clear as the fact that parents who know that by feeding their children animal products they are setting them up for preventable health risks and medical bills are practicing child abuse.

 

The taboo that needs to be shattered is not the prohibition against bestiality, but against caring about nonhuman animals in a respectful, nonpatronizing, and unapologetic way, and against starting one's kids off the right way at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, no matter how much this causes people to talk.

 

Very interesting to say the very least.

 

Having given it some thought I decided to agree to Peter Singer.

 

And I figure out that I shall share this with Kaizero and NO :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think he's old/smart enough to do it as a piss take. I do hope I'm wrong though.

 

IE, You hope that I am old/smart enough to do it as a piss take !? :lol:

 

Yes, because if you're not there's blatantly something wrong with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because if you're not there's blatantly something wrong with you.

 

Kindly explain / elaborate what is wrong with me ?

 

Based on your posts in the sexual abuse thread, I'd say you're on the verge of being a sexual abuser yourself. And based on your continued obsession with strange sexual threads and trying to discuss them in an adult manner, which you continue to fail at doing, I'm thinking you have some repressed sexual urges which no person should have. It's all a bit worrying, tbh. Which is why I sincerely hope you're doing this as a piss-take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your posts in the sexual abuse thread, I'd say you're on the verge of being a sexual abuser yourself. And based on your continued obsession with strange sexual threads and trying to discuss them in an adult manner, which you continue to fail at doing, I'm thinking you have some repressed sexual urges which no person should have. It's all a bit worrying, tbh. Which is why I sincerely hope you're doing this as a piss-take.

 

Strange ? Sexuality is a massively, massively important field that affects our daily behaviour. Your insisting on making me the subject of your sexual jokes - despite my objection, has made me realised that you must enjoy doing it and consequently would have enjoyed the reciprocal.

 

Your patriachist characters are evident in your post, where you seek dominance and submission of your opposition. And you do so none none other than by making up sexual jokes and preying on others who have voiced objection to your abuse. You expressed your wish to chop off others genitalias, and only back pedalled and disguised your comments as jokes when investigated.

 

You, Kaizero, are the one with unhealthy sexual obsession, by seeking to achieve dominance and obedience via sexual submission (genitalia removal, and continuous unconsented verbal sexual abuse).

 

Me discussing sexuality is academic, my points and my discussions are all properly put forward. Yet through your either patricahy-sexually skewed mentality or patriachy-sexually tinted glass, I am the one having sexual obsession ?

 

I discuss sexuality in a topic of sexuality. You continue to refer to sex when sex is irrelevant (possibility of capital punishment, joke). You insist to look at a sexuality topic with ad hominem stance. You continue to display your intense sexual interest, either by blatant sexual refernce or subtle ad hominenm sexual analysis, on me, Delima.

 

It is all about sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex to you Kaizero. I suggest that you examine your own sexuality first by investigating if you have been sexually opressed.

 

Confess your sexual obsession (via open forum post or private message)- and maybe we can have a snog and shag so to relieve your sexual tension, and to correct your sexually-skewed mentality.

 

 

What is your stance on bestiality ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your posts in the sexual abuse thread, I'd say you're on the verge of being a sexual abuser yourself. And based on your continued obsession with strange sexual threads and trying to discuss them in an adult manner, which you continue to fail at doing, I'm thinking you have some repressed sexual urges which no person should have. It's all a bit worrying, tbh. Which is why I sincerely hope you're doing this as a piss-take.

 

Strange ? Sexuality is a massively, massively important field that affects our daily behaviour. Your insisting on making me the subject of your sexual jokes - despite my objection, has made me realised that you must enjoy doing it and consequently would have enjoyed the reciprocal.

 

Your patriachist characters are evident in your post, where you seek dominance and submission of your opposition. And you do so none none other than by making up sexual jokes and preying on others who have voiced objection to your abuse. You expressed your wish to chop off others genitalias, and only back pedalled and disguised your comments as jokes when investigated.

 

You, Kaizero, are the one with unhealthy sexual obsession, by seeking to achieve dominance and obedience via sexual submission (genitalia removal, and continuous unconsented verbal sexual abuse).

 

Me discussing sexuality is academic, my points and my discussions are all properly put forward. Yet through your either patricahy-sexually skewed mentality or patriachy-sexually tinted glass, I am the one having sexual obsession ?

 

I discuss sexuality in a topic of sexuality. You continue to refer to sex when sex is irrelevant (possibility of capital punishment, joke). You insist to look at a sexuality topic with ad hominem stance. You continue to display your intense sexual interest, either by blatant sexual refernce or subtle ad hominenm sexual analysis, on me, Delima.

 

It is all about sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex to you Kaizero. I suggest that you examine your own sexuality first by investigating if you have been sexually opressed.

 

Confess your sexual obsession (via open forum post or private message)- and maybe we can have a snog and shag so to relieve your sexual tension, and to correct your sexually-skewed mentality.

 

 

What is your stance on bestiality ?

 

I, Kaizero, enjoy asking female forum members what they would think if I jizzed on their face.

 

I, Kaizero, think it's okay to abuse the trust of lesser intelligent species to have sex with them, because as long as they don't try to get away they obviously must enjoy it.

 

Oh, wait, that was you.  :doh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I, Kaizero, enjoy asking female forum members what they would think if I jizzed on their face.

 

I, Kaizero, think it's okay to abuse the trust of lesser intelligent species to have sex with them, because as long as they don't try to get away they obviously must enjoy it.

 

Oh, wait, that was you.  :doh:

 

Actually, it would have been much better if you indeed ask the permission of female members prior to jizzing on their face. Unfortunately, you rather indulge in making verbal sexual advances on me (male), and despite my clear objection to it, persisting in doing so. Honestly you seem to have your sexual priority and ethics wrong. You need sexual counsellings :sadnod:

 

Sex isn't necessarily enjoyable. Have you ever had quick penetrations, hand job or blow jobs, where you are the only one sexually enjoying it, but your partner obliged to fulfill your sexual desires, but the whole process being consentual and non-coercive ? In addition, I suggest you to squizze the knob of a horse while standing right behind it. Lets see what is the reaction of this "less intelligent species" if it is not enjoying your knob-squeezing.

 

I will also give you an example of consensual sex, which isn't abusive

 

And also give you an example of non-consensual sex/rape, which is abusive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1VbhmkXLos

 

Can you see the difference ? Can you spot the distinction between rape and consensual sex ?

 

You indeed need some serious sexual counselling and education. Typically those who lack sexual knowledge are those who indulge in making a joke out of it.

 

Chew it.  :aww: Or "suck it", if I am imitating a certain Kaizero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I, Kaizero, enjoy asking female forum members what they would think if I jizzed on their face.

 

I, Kaizero, think it's okay to abuse the trust of lesser intelligent species to have sex with them, because as long as they don't try to get away they obviously must enjoy it.

 

Oh, wait, that was you.  :doh:

 

Actually, it would have been much better if you indeed ask the permission of female members prior to jizzing on their face. Unfortunately, you rather indulge in making verbal sexual advances on me (male), and despite my clear objection to it, persisting in doing so. Honestly you seem to have your sexual priority and ethics wrong. You need sexual counsellings  :colo:

 

Sex isn't necessarily enjoyable. Have you ever had quick penetrations, hand job or blow jobs, where you are the only one sexually enjoying it, but your partner obliged to fulfill your sexual desires, but the whole process being consentual and non-coercive ? In addition, I suggest you to squizze the knob of a horse while standing write behind it. I will also give you an example of consensual sex

And also give you an example of non-consensual sex/rape  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1VbhmkXLos

 

Can you see the difference ? Can you spot the distinction between rape and consensual sex ?

 

You indeed need some serious sexual counselling  :sadnod:

 

Your attempts at a fightback amuses me. You can do better man, come on. I thought you once said you were overly intelligent? Show it in your words. Own me. Destroy me.

 

 

And who the fuck says "Chew it"? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we now comparing intelligence then Kaizero :-)

 

I can differentiate consensual sex and non-consensual sex, you don't seem to.

 

I ask permission first if I wish to make sexual advances on anyone, you don't.

 

I do not see animals as necessarly being less intelligent, as intelligence is subjective and non-quantifiable. Yet you assume animals are less intelligence being.

 

When I discuss sexuality I stay in topic and don't make ad hominem sexual descriptions on the messenger. But you do, and you persist in doing so despite objection.

 

You are age-ist - by discriminating against young people by assuming they are too young to piss take.

 

You are irrationally prudish, by assuming there must be something wrong if one is discussing sexuality. Yet you are sexually ignorant - by continually to make verbal sexual abuse.

 

Anything else you want to add, Kaizero :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we now comparing intelligence then Kaizero :-)

 

I can differentiate consensual sex and non-consensual sex, you don't seem to.

 

I ask permission first if I wish to make sexual advances on anyone, you don't.

 

I do not see animals as necessarly being less intelligent, as intelligence is subjective and non-quantifiable. Yet you assume animals are less intelligence being.

 

When I discuss sexuality I stay in topic and don't make ad hominem sexual descriptions on the messenger. But you do, and you persist in doing so despite objection.

 

You are age-ist - by discriminating against young people by assuming they are too young to piss take.

 

You are irrationally prudish, by assuming there must be something wrong if one is discussing sexuality. Yet you are sexually ignorant - by continually to make verbal sexual abuse.

 

Anything else you want to add, Kaizero :-)

 

Yes, as you did in your other thread.

 

I obviously rape people for a living.

 

See above.

 

Scientific fact, until disproven by new science. Until then everything else is personal opinion.

 

When you discuss sexuality, you do so in a manner that could be qualified as sexual abuse itself by your own standards.

 

Damn right I'm age-ist.

 

I'm not assuming there's anything wrong with people discussing sexuality. I'm assuming there's something wrong with you when you discuss it, because you do so in a manner nobody else is. The other people discussing it in that thread, the ones not taking the piss, discussed it in an adult manner. You did not.

 

Yeah, I want to add that I'm awesome, I'm 5'8" and if I'm walking behind you with a hoodie on in a park. You better run, or you're gonna get sexually abused. Human or not. Rrrrr.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we now comparing intelligence then Kaizero :-)

Yes, as you did in your other thread.

Nope. I don't compare intelligence. I don't think you have the mental capacity to discuss philosophically. Mental capacity and intellgence are two different concept.

 

I can differentiate consensual sex and non-consensual sex, you don't seem to.

I obviously rape people for a living.

If that's your confession?

 

I ask permission first if I wish to make sexual advances on anyone, you don't.

See above.

If that's your confession?

 

I do not see animals as necessarly being less intelligent, as intelligence is subjective and non-quantifiable. Yet you assume animals are less intelligence being.

Scientific fact, until disproven by new science. Until then everything else is personal opinion.

Scientific facts says that new born babies are mentally defected as mandated by human evolution, whereas many of new-born mammal animals are fully developed mental wise. Fact. Your assumption is wrong

 

When I discuss sexuality I stay in topic and don't make ad hominem sexual descriptions on the messenger. But you do, and you persist in doing so despite objection.

When you discuss sexuality, you do so in a manner that could be qualified as sexual abuse itself by your own standards.

Who have I sexually abused? Kaizero ? :lol:

 

You are age-ist - by discriminating against young people by assuming they are too young to piss take.

Damn right I'm age-ist.

If that's your confession?

 

You are irrationally prudish, by assuming there must be something wrong if one is discussing sexuality. Yet you are sexually ignorant - by continually to make verbal sexual abuse.

I'm not assuming there's anything wrong with people discussing sexuality. I'm assuming there's something wrong with you when you discuss it, because you do so in a manner nobody else is. The other people discussing it in that thread, the ones not taking the piss, discussed it in an adult manner. You did not.

I talk about fact, reasonings, logics in a disinterested, unemotional, impersonal manner. Whereas you reply with personal, impulsive, abusive, ad hominem manner. I leave it to you to judge which one is the adult manner, which one is not.

 

Anything else you want to add, Kaizero :-)

Yeah, I want to add that I'm awesome, I'm 5'8" and if I'm walking behind you with a hoodie on in a park. You better run, or you're gonna get sexually abused. Human or not. Rrrrr.

I will be happy to be your sexual punchbag - if this helps relieve your sexual tension and apprehension that is evident in your posting :-) Come have a snog and a shag with me :-)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...