Sex With Dead Deer is NOT Bestiality

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Says the man with the pvssy avatar.

[Elok]

Regulate? Hell no! Gov't. oversight costs money. The budget is bloated enough without money being set aside for a Dead Animal Railing Oversight Commission or whatever. The pervs can just buy custom blowup dolls, or masturbate with raw steaks, instead of spending our tax money to ensure that they don't import exotic diseases from deceased members of the animal kingdom they decided to hump.

I was being facetious about eating the deer, though I would prefer that people eat what they kill instead of just stuffing them and hanging them on walls to compensate for their killers' penis size. Or having sex with them.

[SlowwHand]

Ogie, you took that kind of personal. I didn't realize you were one of them.

[senowen]

A zoologist that goes out into the wild, or an anthropologist that investigates some primitive (or whatever the PC term is) tribe could potentially contract some horrible new disease that could infect and destroy all of humanity.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the fact that some of the tribe is obviously resistent to the disease means that there is some built in human resistance to whatever disease we are talking about. In fact, the tribe should be much more worried about getting something from us, than us from them.

Should these activities be illegal too? Or perhaps just regulated for safety?

Life is risky. Some potential dangers are worth the risk. Most people would belief that the tiny risk of getting a horrible disease is outweighed by the reward that the research brings by increasing human knowledge. However, is the purient reward for having sex with an animal worth the tiny risk of getting a horrible disease that could affect other humans?

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I never knew there were so many pet pounders at ACS.

How about providing reasons for why this is wrong, instead of sticking to the ad hominems that I explicitly told you not to make?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I never knew there were so many pet pounders at ACS.

Why Sloww, what an excellent argument! I hadn't considered that before. This thoroughly and precisely conceived piece of logic on your part completely dashes and destroys all the reasons I have set before you.

Bill3000, come, we should abandon our debate for Slowwhand's argument is far suprior to ours. We presented reasons, backed them up with facts, attempted to defend them, but no, this was pure folly. For we had failed to consider the totally relevant and brilliant observation that... what did he say? yes, that we are pet pounders.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Bill3000


How about providing reasons for why this is wrong, instead of sticking to the ad hominems that I explicitly told you not to make?

Guess what, Bill?
If I gave a rat's ass what you TOLD me to do or not do, I just might.
I hope mentioning a rat's ass doesn't get you too hot.

Also, maybe I don't think it should be necessary.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Elok
Regulate? Hell no! Gov't. oversight costs money. The budget is bloated enough without money being set aside for a Dead Animal Railing Oversight Commission or whatever. The pervs can just buy custom blowup dolls, or masturbate with raw steaks, instead of spending our tax money to ensure that they don't import exotic diseases from deceased members of the animal kingdom they decided to hump.

Then what do you actually propose be done about it? Should someone be sent to jail for performing an activity that has the potential to give them a disease that they could potentially spread to other people?

Originally posted by senowen
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the fact that some of the tribe is obviously resistent to the disease means that there is some built in human resistance to whatever disease we are talking about. In fact, the tribe should be much more worried about getting something from us, than us from them.

The resistance might be genetic, and might be something that us civilized humans just couldn't be expected to have.

But that's not the point. The point is, it's still a risky activity, and you cannot accurately say if it's more or less risky than ****ing a dead deer. Which brings us to...

Life is risky. Some potential dangers are worth the risk. Most people would belief that the tiny risk of getting a horrible disease is outweighed by the reward that the research brings by increasing human knowledge. However, is the purient reward for having sex with an animal worth the tiny risk of getting a horrible disease that could affect other humans?

This is a good question, actually. An awfully good question. The answer to this question takes us back to fundamental differences in ideology. A libertarian or anarachist might say that of course a human should be able to **** a dead animal; who cares about the rest of society. Those more concerned with the rights of society might say otherwise.

All I have to add myself is the question I asked Elok. What punishment should be given for potentially creating a risk?

[Bill3000]

Guess what, Bill?
If I gave a rat's ass what you TOLD me to do or not do, I just might.
I hope mentioning a rat's ass doesn't get you too hot.

Also, maybe I don't think it should be necessary.

Yawn. In a debate, you stick to stick to skills relating to a debate, not random asshattery. The reason people think debating on the internet is like winning the special olympics is because of "arguments" like yours, but that doesn't mean that it has to be it.

More importantly, if you don't want to debate this issue seriously, then stay out of the thread.

[SlowwHand]

I don't think it warrants a debate.
It's pretty much a cut and dried issue.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't think it warrants a debate.
It's pretty much a cut and dried issue.

If it's a cut and try issue, you should be able to debunk us easily.

[senowen]

Originally posted by Lorizael
The answer to this question takes us back to fundamental differences in ideology. A libertarian or anarachist might say that of course a human should be able to **** a dead animal; who cares about the rest of society. Those more concerned with the rights of society might say otherwise.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. That doesn't mean that the opinion is acceptable. Someone's desire to engage in risky activities that could potential harm others but give no benefit to anyone else does not trump everyone else's desire to not be put at risk by reckless individuals. That is why we have laws against activities such as drunk driving.

All I have to add myself is the question I asked Elok. What punishment should be given for potentially creating a risk?

Jail? No probably not. Someone who ****s dead animals has a problem that jail is not going to fix.

[senowen]

Originally posted by Bill3000

If it's a cut and try issue, you should be able to debunk us easily.

Well the argument is obvious. Slowwhand: I'm from Texas, I think what you say is wrong, therefore I'm right.

[Richelieu]

I Poly.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't think it warrants a debate.
It's pretty much a cut and dried issue.

Sloww, there is no issue to you. There's nothing to consider. You haven't thought about this and you never will. You say it's wrong, and you're entitled to your opinion, but in order for that opinion to have meaning under the law, you have to back it up somehow.