/fur/ - Furry★

Haha look at all those aids

Lol, rekt

>Get called out on knowingly infecting other people with a life-long uncurable viral disease

>Responded with "lol basic bitches" and had white knights defend him

Speaking of AIDS, I bumped into a person last week and we started talking about electronics and shit and then it got more esoteric. He told me that Lake Ontario was full of the shit in the 50's. Basically when funeral homes exsanguinated bodies, they'd just dump the blood down a storm drain, where it would apparently propagate in warm sewerage water.

He also said that King Tut's Curse was basically a cloud of dormant AIDS that affected everyone in the room when it was unboxed. Apparently, eating live monkey brains was a Chinese delicacy at the time, but it inflicted "the wasting disease" on him.

>>42972 (OP)

fucking a furry sounds like the biggest mistake anyone could possibly make

>>42972 (OP)

Is there really anything so wrong about having unprotected sex with people and not telling them you have HIV?

>>43002

Low energy.

>>42981

>apparently propagate in warm sewerage water

nigger look up how retroviruses work

>>43002

They unrionically excuse it now because disclosure it's considered "std-shaming".

>>43016

Maybe it's just an advanced form of bullying.

>>43018

>>43016

>>43019

This makes me realize how terrifyingly fucking easy it would be to totally destroy someone's social life (and possibly more) by photoshopping the name of their fursona/fursuit into this "map", combining it with dox information. and then widely disseminating it across the internet. By the time they could prove their "innocence" (by either showing they do not have AIDS, or didn't even attend that con, or don't even fucking live in the UK) it would be too late.

people are naturally more inclined to believe negative things because instincts tell you what to stay away from >>43038

>>43016

QT owl, I'd bend over for him~

>>43043

Sorry, but I think Cuddlebag, AKA Bully-magnet here is a sub.

>>43047

99% of them are subs because they avoid prison that way

>>43092

And I still don't know why ice is slippery.

>>43002

You just murder them. No biggie

>>42972 (OP)

Didn't I see some people on another board a while back expose this chart/list as a big steaming heap of bullshit? I mean, it's not at all like furries to hold a grudge so nasty that they'll accuse a bunch of people they don't like of being Typhoid Marys, right?

>>43137

>wearing condoms

I'd rather just not have sex and jerk off than put something between me and my partner. It kinda belies the entire point of sex, if you ask me.

But then I suppose if you're already wearing a goddamn fursuit and can't even tell what you're fucking, it makes less of a difference.

It's a bit different if you know someone.

In this case they were fucking random strangers and just didn't think anything bad would happen

>>43145

The idea of going to a con and getting fucked by as many random strangers as possible, eg tied down in a room and someone posts an ad, sounds really appealing. Just suck as much cum as you can regardless of the consequences

Of course I know that'd be a very fast way to ruin my life and I dont want to participate in any part of that culture, but if my life turned out differently, I might have

>>43146

to me this is the rough equivalent of playing russian roulette with every individual person

>>43147

>>43146

The thing is, AIDS gets the bad rep with casual sex, but you probably wouldn't even get it at one con. The chances are like one in a couple hundred per act; the chances of contracting like herpes or something are much, much higher. The guys that get AIDS are literally those poster-child fags that have "thousands of partners".

The only fur I know of who's verified to have HIV is Sibe, and he WILL try to convince people to fuck him bareback. If I know Sibe, after doing so, he'll tell them he's pos and laugh at them. Even the trolliest other furs aren't as much of an asshole as Sibe.

>>43157

Sibe needs to be put down. Can't believe he has as many followers as he does.

>>43146

>sounds really appealing

Following AD accounts of other furs who tried it, they say it's not as satisfying as you think. You really need to be in such a mindset like a porn star that you live for sex and pleasuring others. Just best to stick with people you know and trust. Don't trust papers from new acquaintances either: they don't mean shit. Just wrap it up.

>>43306

Well that's what I mean. If I was different, a lifestyler, things would be much different

>>43178

>Can't believe he has as many followers as he does

I can, sadly. The fandom seems to have a large number of the kind of trolls who'd laugh if their harassment caused someone to commit suicide. A troll spreading a deadly disease around probably strikes them as hilarious comeuppance for what they see as stupid-ass autistic furry shits being stupid-ass autistic furry shits.

In yet another example of RainFurrest's staff not taking care of problems, he ghosted RF several years in a row, and at least once, talked some guy into barebacking with him-- and, in true Sibe fashion, promptly admitted to being poz (from what I recall, said guy has tested negative). I saw him at the con a few times, and he was always zonked on some sort of happy pills.

I'll say this: he looked more haggard at RF than when I met him the first time, when he crashed a Washington furmeet I used to go to, attempted to fuck with someone he'd fucked with in the past, and failed spectacularly. I can share that fail if anybody wants to see Sibe flop.

for the gay stuff just use a cheapt fleet enema and a condom. for everything else a condom and some cleanliness is the best thing. This is basic stuff.

>>43374

Please do share that fail.

>>43380

Sibe, as may be known, fucked over another fur when he was living in Oregon, got put on probation, then skipped out and moved to Washington.

My local meet was at a mall's food court. A handful of the members were gun nuts, though I never saw any evidence of them CCing at the meet. One of said gunfurs, I'll call him Jake, had been fucked with previously by Sibe, and has a no-contact order on him. I arrived for a meet, and there was a man there I hadn't seen before, wearing a knit beanie. I didn't pay too much attention, and he soon walked away. Jake was NOT present. I heard Sibe's name, asked, and someone said, "He was just here." I went outside to the smoking area, and my first thought was, "It's like he's trying to look like Eminem." His beanie had something stitched on it in Gothic Blackletter, which I couldn't read. He was talking to another group, but I asked him what his had said. He snapped, "It says kill all furries!" and turned his back to me. (It was supposed to say "SIBE 4 LIFE," though was pretty much unreadable).

I shrugged and thought, yep, that's the sort of attitude I expected, trollish but in a juvenile way. A few minutes later, mall security arrived, and he went over to talk to them, loudly. They asked him about a problem, and he said in a sort of faux-overexcited tone, "Yeah, it's Jake! He's in there! He has a handgun! (Dramatic pause for effect) It's loaded! (Dramatic pause) He pointed it at me!!" Security asks if anyone knows Jake, and I volunteered. I walked inside and, as soon as the doors shut, said, "This guy has a standing reputation for being a liar. I know Jake, but they're not here today." Security says, yes, we know that, because Jake is outside, around the corner, talking with other security.

What happened: Sibe apparently had a genius idea, or so he thought: "If I always get to the meet first, the no-contact order means Jake can't attend!" When he got there, someone called Jake, who, upon arrival, went to security and explained the situation. Security & I walked back out, the rest of them came over and banned him from the property. He had some buddy who left with him, and he shouted some more juvenile crap at us as he left.

After that, he briefly took over a meet at another mall, chased away all the furs and remade it with a few of his buds, then (for reasons I can't fathom, unless he's just that stupid) moved back to Oregon, got caught and thrown back in jail.

Err, what his HAT said. Typos suck.

>>43387

Holy Hell, sibe is just fucking donkey-brained retarded.

>>43389

I think he always has been, he's just gotten worse. I said I think there are lots of trolls like him, but he's the only one I've ever heard of who's spreading disease. The rumors go that he carries several STDs, but I have it on good authority that he has HIV. The rest is just rumors.

I have something else from mouths I trust, though: the reason he never seemed to get in too much hot water was because his family, who are rather wealthy, kept paying whatever it took to get him free. I'm told that, in the last year or so, they've had enough, and will no longer be paying him out of trouble.

Also, re: RicoTiger:

http://fuckingfurries.tumblr.com/post/126843205759/has-ricotiger-himself-said-anything-about-this

>>43002

If you don't care about someone finding out it was you that gave it to them, grabbing a shotgun, and blasting your head off your shoulders at point blank range. Poz is all fun and games until you pozzed the wrong victim.

>>43390

That's an example of someone who prisons were built for.

>>43394

Do not feed the trolls. Especially not ones whose attempts are this poor.

>>43395

I just hope his next fuck-up sends him to prison AND doesn't involve someone catching diseases from him. There are lots of people who troll for their own amusement, but I know no others who treat giving someone a terminal illness that way.

>>43437

To be fair, there ARE plenty of people who have AIDS through no fault of their own, like getting it from their mother during birth, or being raped, or even extremely rare cases involving blood transfusions. Stigmatizing it only makes these people less likely to want to talk about it, seek treatment, or tell their partners. It helps nobody. Sibe is an asshole with or without AIDS.

>>43442

Nothing wrong with using them condoms or not having sex at all. People are completely right for stigmatizing a deadly disease. It's a survival instinct.

Don't dismiss danger just because you want to be nice, being nice means that you prevent another person from having a weakened immune system and spending thousands in medicine.

>>43387

How has nobody dragged this moron out back and beat his ass with a tire iron yet? He is literally going around trying to ruin peoples lives, you'd think someone would've snapped and tried ruining his.

>>43480

I wonder this too and have had half a mind so to it myself. Maybe one day

>>43146

I've done the virtual form of this. Hours spent getting textfucked by strangers. I've done it several times if you count the times when the "strangers" were people I knew playing faceless bit roles for a negotiated scene, but I've still done it once if you only count virtual strangers who are actually strangers I didn't negotiate anything with. It went well, but I haven't wanted to do it again. I got the impression that I was very fortunate in finding a crowd that could make it work with me. Not something to push my luck on.

>>43442

This is true. But also, most people (including, I feel confident in saying, nearly all of the people who got it through no fault of their own) tell partners, be proactive and use protection, as said by

>>43443

>>43480

I really don't know, but I just want him in jail or prison. Of course, this-- passing HIV around-- is purely an extension of the attitude Sibe has had for a long time: if it amuses me, that's the only thing that matters, and wrecking people is what amuses me. For anyone who doesn't remember his early days, he first acquired infamy for pirating art CDs that were being sold. This was during the days when people were arguing over Napster, with one side insisting that art such as music deserves to be free. Sibe was very open about why he was giving away stuff artists were trying to sell: he found it hilarious that he was screwing people out of an attempt at a living.

Long before it seems he got any STDs, his preferred sexual modus operandi was convincing shy (sometimes teen-aged) furs with low self-esteem to let him fuck them, then humiliating them for falling for it. The common claim goes that, after sex, he'd have them sleep on the couch and, while they slept, would drop a deuce on them-- followed by verbal humiliation about being a sucker when they woke up.

The incident which got him that probation in Oregon had him sleeping over at someone's apartment. He left while they were still asleep, stole the telephone cord and the person's shoes, and threw broken bottles all around the bed. Once they woke up, they threw things against the ceiling and shouted until the upstairs neighbor got annoyed and came down.

>>43593

The only person I know of who did this at furcons required that participants show paperwork from their recent STD test proving they didn't have any.

>>43393

>Rumors are false because the subject of them said so

Come on now

>>43508

Hey same dude, we should jump in and fuck each other and test our luck. :^)

>>43696

>Rumors are false because the subject of them said so

We don't have any proof that he WAS spreading HIV beyond the graphic posted above, do we?

>>43645

>participants show paperwork from their recent STD test proving they didn't have any

It would be completely effortless to fake such a document. As easy as scanning it, shooping "POSITIVE" to "NEGATIVE", and reprinting it. I doubt such things have official security features such as watermarks or microprint. I'd never trust that. The only way I would ever have sex with someone I didn't know for a very long time is if I personally draw the blood and test it, myself.

Okay, these rumors were discussed years ago, and the list is pretty flawed. Who constructed it, anyway?

Would take some time digging it all up again, but many on the list never had sex with each other, and I've seen no one coming out and saying that he got AIDS after sleeping with X.

Also, HIV is not contracted that easily. First you have to have real rough sex, until it gets bloody, and even then it's still possible not to get infected. ... I sound like a gift-giver now, do I? Just don't have unprotected sex with strangers.

I for one, was immediately suspicious of this list. Sounded like someone wanted to spread the rumor around "Furries are despicable and spread STDs on purpose during their orgies"

>>43716

>First you have to have real rough sex, until it gets bloody,

Literally no.

>>43707

I wouldn't think many people would go to that trouble (and would have no qualms about that kind of lying) in order to bareback some guy at a con. I'm sure a few people in the fandom might do that, but I doubt it's common. Yes, a bareback gangbang is a risk, but if the person bottoming understands the risk and then gets tested regularly (and, assuming they catch something, takes care of it) that's up to them. I would be shocked if any fur besides Sibe was intentionally trying to infect people with an incurable disease; I've never run into any other fandom trolls who were as hateful and vindictive as he is.

>>43716

No, you can definitely catch HIV from unprotected anal or vaginal sex. It might not happen every time, but it's a risk. I agree about the list, though; I don't know anyone on it, so I can't say whether any of them have had sex, but it seems like an easy way to start with a known carrier, put in the names of any furs who pissed you off or who you want to troll, spread the list around, and wait for dents to appear in their reputations.

>>43788

>I wouldn't think many people would go to that trouble (and would have no qualms about that kind of lying) in order to bareback some guy at a con

Based on what's been posted about his personality, Sibe certainly would. If one person would, many could. How could someone tell the difference between someone like Sibe and someone who isn't? Surely you know that real psychopaths are master liars and manipulators, to the point where even experts can't pick them out of a crowd. So if someone actually wants to have sex with you, the chances are higher that he wants to do so for a malicious reason. A person that wants to infect random people with HIV will never REFUSE to have sex with you.

>2017

>being gay and not expecting to get a disease

>>43716

>Also, HIV is not contracted that easily. First you have to have real rough sex, until it gets bloody, and even then it's still possible not to get infected. ... I sound like a gift-giver now, do I? Just don't have unprotected sex with strangers.

I wouldn't risk it because of the bad outcome. It's like playing Russian Roulette. Sure, you do have an 80% to 87.5 chance of surviving a bullet, but you lose a lot from that outcome.

>>43859

Does being gay cause people to spontaneously generate diseases out of nothing? Cool! This sounds like an evil villain superpower. I can just sit around and wait for my body to invent new and exciting deadly maladies out of pure concentrated faggotry.

>>42972 (OP)

We had this topic like a year ago and there was no evidence of it whatsoever, this is dumb.

>>43855

>So if someone actually wants to have sex with you, the chances are higher that he wants to do so for a malicious reason

I honestly don't believe there's a high risk of this. A risk, yes, there's always a risk; there's a risk that, if you as them to use protection, they'll put a few pinholes in it. Everything is a risk, including there being true psychopaths and/or sociopaths around.

That all being true doesn't mean that some fur who had a bareback gangbang with STD tests shown is likely to be carrying diseases.

>>43859

Troll harder, we can't hear you!

>>43862

True, though in a situation like the aforementioned orgy, everyone should understand the risks-- and it's very unlikely that there'll be people in the bunch who're there just to fake everything just to infect you. It's a risk, again, but as said, even if you make the top use a condom, a real psycho can easily "fix" that condom. Everything is a risk.

>>43868

There's a longstanding legend that just won't die (though this dumbass troll probably doesn't actually believe it) that gay people are much, MUCH more promiscuous than straights-- ALL of them are-- and that STDs are rampant among them. Some go so far as to think HIV is almost entirely carried by The Gays.

>>43869

So this chart was already covered and no proof was found then either? OP is digging up a turd that was buried a year ago, waving it around and going, "Hey, guys, check this out!"

>>48663

>Estimated

Also, by some simple mathematical calculations (USA birthrate in 2016 of 62 per 1000 and a 3% figure for amount of fags) there are about 558,000 new homosexuals born every year. If only 27,000 of them get HIV, that's only ~5% of the total. Statistically speaking, you'd need to have over 20 partners to get it. Most people, gay or straight, have fewer than five partners in a lifetime.

But see, that's the thing. There's a tiny amount of gays that are having the most sex, with hundreds of partners, and it skews the averages. Are you going to stand there and judge the average heterosexual by, say, Hugh Hefner?

>>48668

This guy has it.

>>42981

Post screenshoots of his comment and white knights, i want to see what retarded excuse they use to defend indirect murder.

>>42972 (OP)

Is that shit real or just another autistic furfag made up a fanfiction to cause drama?

If this shit is real then post sources.

>>48675

Nah it's not real, it was debunked

>>48677

Haven't seen anything saying otherwise.

>and the 'clean' record felix posted is prolly fake

>>48696

So, "I want to believe there's an evil furry Typhoid Mary running around, so I'll call the claim credible"?

>>48673

What? This was a screenshot of his post like 2 years ago

>>48722

>1st pic

Suit on the right is cute.

>>48722

I honestly don't give a shit if he lets his dog fuck him. That's ;pretty darned far from my own fetishes, but hey, I don't give a shit what HE does. But even if others think that makes him one sick fuck, it's still not proof that he's got AIDS, much less that he's spreading it around.

>>48733

>>48722

Reminder that its not consentual because the dog doesn't understand permission. It also causes it psychological damage because it won't produce children from sex

Absolutely degenerate >>>/zoo/

cute pic though

>>48735

Are you fucking stupid?

>>48735

So everyone who has every masturbated has psychological damage.

Fuck, that explains the entire human race!

>>48742

>>48736

He was clearly talking about the dog.

>>49713

Can we please not do this right now? God damn.

God, it's like a family tree of AIDS.

>>48735

>It also causes it psychological damage because it won't produce children from sex

WTF?

>>48742

Yeah, masturbation must drive people insane.

Thread theme

>>49678

Honestly I kind of respect the guy for being open about it. Like more people really need to be that upfront with. He's still an idiot for getting it, but at least he's going to try and minimize its spread through him.

>>49782

Agreed. Stupidity about sex got him there, but he's getting treatment and he's telling people.

>>49799

>>49782

>Decent people still exist

And on a positive note, he can bunk with other buglovers without a problem now

>>49800

but if you have HIV and you fuck other people with HIV you might get super AIDS where you have multiple strains of HIV affecting your immune system

>>49803

Yolo

AIDS is god's way of telling you to find a partner and stay with them for life.

The more treacherous people become, the worse it gets.

It's a curable disease. Stop being a treacherous fool.

>>49811

>GRIDS

>Curable

No, it can be suppressed to undetectable levels as long as you're on a drug, but it will remain a part of you forever

>>49812

and if you ever stop taking the drug, it starts to regain strength until it is full blown again

>>49811

And what about the babies who get it from their mother? What is God telling them...? "You're FUCKED, kid! Lol!" or something?

>>49815

Holy fuck, this board is so easy to bait. Shut the hell up, anon.

>>49821

Project harder baitareeno

>>49821

It was more of a counter to the "everyone who has AIDS got it from gay buttsex" meme.

>>52694

>has constant, mindless, unprotected sex

I'm surprised you think crazy autistic people can easily get tons of sex. There's like ten-thousand people at an average con, and maybe fifty of them are slutting it up.

>>43442

And this is the kind of reasoning behind why California made it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to knowingly give AIDS/HIV to people without telling them. It's bullshit. It's a lifelong disease that WILL kill you without thousands of dollars in treatment for the rest of your life. You can live in the shadows but you will end up killing the person you give your disease to. It's still knowingly committing eventual murder.

>>48735

If a male dog isn't trained to fuck them, it's consensual, as the dog chooses to hump you, whereas it's not consensual with a female dog, as she cannot tell you yes or no. But a dog already humping YOU? It's pretty clear.

>>49678

from whom

>>42972 (OP)

this thread's petty name dropping will always get replies; so long as you post it on a slow board as rarely as you do. any more and people would get bored.

you've got it down to a science! :3

>>53292

Except there is literally nothing wrong with fucking dogs, nerd

>>48735

>because the dog doesn't understand permission.

moralfags leave

>>53331

>We have no accurate equation of human and canine intelligence to compare the two accurately

Irrelevant. The dog is an adult for its species, thus capable of making adult decisions for itself. You cannot support banning one type of "abuse" while not banning other types, especially when the type that is NOT banned is the one that is proven to always be harmful. A person can fuck a dog without harming it; a person CANNOT neuter a dog without harming it. Simple.

>>53348

>thinking moralfags wont mental gymnastic themself over this point like they do every single time

moralfags are a blight upon society

>>53395

>We are humans operating under the assumptions of human standards of sexuality

This is a bizarre assumption. A human being does not have sex with a dog in the same way as they do with a human being; they bend themselves to operate under the norms of canine sexuality. It sounds to me as if you have NO IDEA how people actually have sex with dogs, and are only believing that it's wrong based on your own misconceptions. What, do you think they tie them down and rape them in the missionary position until they bleed? Does that fit your narrative enough to serve your agenda? It's exactly like homophobes who think being gay is going to bathhouses and sucking a thousand dicks and eating everyone's shit.

Your screaming, childish rant of how much the idea of dog sex upsets your feelings isn't an argument, it's merely the whining of an ignorant fool. You can't even bring yourself to properly address how irrational it is to disallow fucking a chicken (even not to death) purely for your own enjoyment, but fully allow chopping its head off, cooking it, and consuming its flesh purely for your own enjoyment.

Finally, do you actually think using Cowboy Bebop gifs makes you appear more intelligent and grown up? What a joke!

Whatever. I'm not going to respond to whatever bullshit you say next, because the last time this happened I got banned. Sadly, it seems the mods are idiot moralfags, too.

>>53404

>they bend themselves to operate under the norms of canine sexuality.

I can't fucking breathe, so are you telling me they keep track of estrus cycles and hormonal releases and never fuck outside of those cycles, or are you saying that as humans, they have the ability to disregard their human operations of sexual behavior and shift into Otherkin Mode and fuck dogs that way?

>What, do you think they tie them down and rape them in the missionary position until they bleed?

Nope, it could even enjoy it, couldn't enjoy it, not even in the realm of my argument, just think you really have no idea what it's thinking when your doing this sort of thing so if it turns out that "Not really enjoying this, but my master does so I won't do anything" is one of the possibilities of this behavior which would inherently be invisible to body language, then you're being disingenuous that out of all of the times you engage in this that could never happen, then you seem to be operating more on emotions than I am.

> your narrative enough to serve your agenda?

Didn't know I had one, I'm just prodding logical inconsistencies the same way I would someone that proclaims they have faith, rather than objectivity without any doubt whatsoever.

>It's exactly like homophobes

Any sentence that starts out like this is never going to end well.

>sucking a thousand dicks and eating everyone's shit.

kind of what I thought.

>Your screaming, childish rant of how much the idea of dog sex upsets your feelings

You seem more upset than I am to be honest, and again, I haven't engaged my emotions not one. time. that I've written any of this. I want you to Ctrl+F and see if you can find "angry" or "fuck you" because it isn't there.

>but fully allow chopping its head off, cooking it, and consuming its flesh purely for your own enjoyment.

I was wondering when you were going there because you're talking to a vegan; I have every right to engage in this discussion with you, so you can't pull out a technicality with this.

>do you actually think using Cowboy Bebop gifs makes you appear more intelligent and grown up? What a joke!

Again, you seem more quick to anger than I've ever been, only reason I used them is because this conversation has spanned a length of time since this is a slow board and I felt it was necessary to signify it was the same person since I assumed after the first post I would need follow-up. Offtopic but Cowboy Bebop is a great show man, Space Dandy for more humor if that's you're preference.

>Whatever. I'm not going to respond to whatever bullshit you say next

You haven't given a genuine response to anything I've said prior, let alone anything in the future.

>because the last time this happened I got banned. Sadly, it seems the mods are idiot moralfags, too.

There's that buzzword again, I've repeatedly told you that if all factors were accounted for and there were talking animals walking around that removed all instances of gray area, then I should have no problem with any of it if I were logically consistent. But man I don't think you actually have ANYTHING to give me here, because I'm asking you specific questions that operate on thinking through the logistical aspects of what you believe, and you won't even address them because you can't without possessing omniscience. I might be completely on your side in 50 years for all I know of technology, but until then you have yet to admit the possibility, not even guaranteed, just the possibility, that the social dynamic isn't equal, the legal protection you can fucking forget about that, prone to manipulation EVEN INDIRECTLY without being aware that you're guiding their actions because of their undying loyalty, or any other pragmatic inquiry that is absent of emotional plea, but all you do is sit there gargling "moralfags, everyone moralfags" out the sides of your mouth. Left out the Cowboy Bebop picture this time just for you, but thought about including it for a laugh. I don't hate you man, but I don't think you're being honest about the uncertainty gray area at all. When they start holding up signs in their mouths advocating for zoo sex and walk around with translator collars then sure, but i'm not with you right now.

>>53418

>dogs can't enjoy sex with humans

boy, are you EVER one dumb motherfucker.

>>53514

Not even worth retorting, I literally said the exact opposite so you either haven't read a single thing that I've said or you're being purposely obtuse.

>>53522

your entire argument back there is literally "the dog can't tell you that you are harming it so you always are". you're selectively picking an argument that fits your own feelings out of convenience. it's like saying that it's okay to kill chickens in any method except cutting on their head, because your afraid of decapitation. and killing chickens is cruel anyway, so we might as well ban ONE kind of cruelty if we can.

you're a moralfag, end of story. you can't even bother being a consistent one, either. only whenever its convenient to you.

let's shift this from dogs for the moment. tell me. can you rape a horse? can you force yourself onto an animal that weighs a ton and can kill you with a single kick? or do you think its possible to get a horse "so well trained" that it might just put up with being in pain if its "master" tells it to?

howfucking goddamn ignorant do you have to be to think people can't tell what an animal is thinking or feeling? that they can't tell if its hurting or even in minor discomfort? how fucking far up your own fucking ass are you? i bet you've never even owned a dog. couldn't even tell whether one is about to bite you until it did.

>>53584

>I would imagine a horse or cow wouldn't really care but "I don't care" isn't exactly a good jumpoff point since it seems a bit one sided.

>imagine

Wow what a surprise, you have no actual experience yourself with these animals (whether personal or observed, sexual or not) how could anyone see that coming. Horses very much do care. And they can and will give you signals if theyre not receptive to you intimately or otherwise. Horses aren't going to lay on their back and take it like a bitch even though that'd be hot :^) like you think. Keyword here, because again, you have no actual, real world basis to go off of. You're a stupid faggot basing all your opinions on your fucking imagination. You and your whole argument is worthless. You don't know animals, especially in a sexual context.

>>53584

Look, just because something can SOMETIMES be abusive, doesn't mean it should be banned. That's retarded.

Men sometimes rape women, therefore all heterosexual intercourse should be illegal! People can only reproduce via artificial insemination. Does that sound logical? Because based on your stance with having sex with dogs, you must believe this, too.

So, you're either completely fucking insane, or you're a massive hypocrite. Either way, your argument is bunk. Simple.

>>53606

>Talks about a black-and-white argument when his own is exactly the same

>Doesn't answer whether he's insane or a hypocrite because he's backed into a corner of ironclad logic

>Continues to moralfag it up

Animals are legal property. I can kill them at my leisure and not a single person will bat an eye. But fondling his dick makes me a bad person, right?

>>53677

>Animals are legal property. I can kill them at my leisure and not a single person will bat an eye.

Anon do you need me to leave an FBI tip or something because I need to know if your neighbors hear screams coming from your basement.

>>53689

>The FBI

>Investigating animal abuse tips instead of terrorism and corruption

Tell me, from as far deep as you've stuffed your head, have you found any colon cancer, yet?

But yes, they do hear screams from the chickens I am legally allowed to own, cage, and slaughter at will. But I can't touch their cloaca because that would make me a BAD PERSON!

>>53706

There's no fucking way you're not autistic if you seriously believe someone mentioning the FBI on an 8/4chan board is actually intending to call the FBI. There's some sort of tunnel vision with all of your posts that I can't pick up on because it's like you pick up on a single word in a span of 4-5 paragraphs like the arrangement of letters makes you spazz out.

Also good to know that you're arguing for your position by saying the food industry is evil and disgusting so why would you have a problem with fucking animals if you participate in the food industry (still vegan like I was a few responses earlier, nothing's changed) even though YOU participate in it yourself so here we are thy hypocrisy, it's like Ted Bundy trying to convince me to get rid of the death penalty and goes into emotional pleas for peace and love.

>>53723

>I'm vegan so the fact that my arguments are hypocritical nonsense doesn't matter

If we were discussing your OWN morality, you would have a point. But we are not. You're deciding how the entire world's morality should be, and since the world isn't vegan, it doesn't make a fucking difference what YOU are.

Also, the food "industry" is not the issue. That's just another of your convenient red herrings. What is the issue is that it's perfectly fine to do whatever you want to an animal that you own as a piece of legal property, even kill it, but it's not okay to molest it. That's illogical. You think it's not because sex with animals upsets your precious feelings. Either it's okay to harm an animal, or it's not. You can't continue to have it both ways.

>>53773

>You can't have it both ways, either you can harm an animal or you can't

>is vegan specifically because I'm not having it both ways and I made a choice of one of those two

>If we were talking about your own morality you may have a point

Is this a freudian slip? Because the implication is that I'm in the right and the global affairs is in the wrong, but i'm somehow removed from the equation akin to participating in pacifism because it's pointless when murder exists. I've been discussing the application of the law on a macro scale because I understand people won't all become hardcore vegans, so I push for legislation that will at least reduce the net total of actionable and potential harm, so if you're saying I have a point on a micro scale with my own morals then that standard should be something to get closer to on a macro scale. But then you say i'm hypocritical for these puritan values and standards so you're a little conflicting on whether i'm in the right or not and it's greatly confusing.

>>53778

>I push for legislation that will at least reduce the net total of actionable and potential harm

Then we're right back to banning heterosexual sex between humans because sometimes rape happens. Why is it reasonable to infringe upon the rights of the minority to "reduce potential harm", but not the majority? The only reason you agree with this is because you don't like people having sex with animals (because you were told it was wrong, and believed it without bothering to think for yourself), and are incapable of seeing past your own biases.

>>53833

>Why is it reasonable to infringe upon the rights of the minority to "reduce potential harm", but not the majority?

Because humans that engage in heterosexual sex can always fall back on the protective netting that society has set up just in case it turns bad, which isn't afforded to animals, this entire thread I've told you I don't have a problem with it if the criteria of no harm has been met or at the very least if you wanted to set up a system where this act was legalized then the potential for harm should be backed up with those protections which is currently impossible seeing as animals can't file sexual assault reports as it stands TODAY, and if this criteria was met in a futuristic scenario I wouldn't care at all, but as it stands I have to support the current legal precedent. We've been going back and forth for a while so we will have to agree to disagree; I think you have a few biases yourself mate seeing as how you're not looking at this from my point of view which is based on how we would pragmatically implement this sort of system rather than the semantics of the act itself. I understand your point of view because you're probably used to going in a spiral of "it's gross" with other people so I would hope you would understand my point of view that is stemming from an entirely different category dealing with social policy implementation rather than moral policy. I've had fun with the argument though so best of luck to ya mate, I don't think we're going to get any further with the discussion.

>>53856

>Animals can't file sexual assault reports

That's absurd. Neither can they complain about not having enough food or the proper nutrition, or that their beds suck, or they don't get enough exercise. It is expected that the owner will provide for a pet's EVERY needs, including food and shelter and comfort and affection. But their sexual needs (or otherwise desires) are simply ignored because sex is nasty and horrible and dangerous and should be controlled as much as possible.

There thing here is that you've become consumed with the Western delusion that sex is some separate category, that it even CAN be a separate category. That abusing an animal by punching it is somehow not the same as abusing it by fucking it. There are ALREADY ANIMAL ABUSE LAWS IN PLACE. If an animal is being unnecessarily harmed, it's illegal --- plain and simple. To create a separate law simply to make illegal an act which can potentially be only one type of abuse has NO PURPOSE, except to maintain those idiotic customs against all types of sex (except the ones that the lawmakers actually like). It would be like making it illegal to ever tie up a dog, because it can potentially be abused by being tied up for extended periods. Except in some bizarro world where dogs GREATLY ENJOY being tied up.

Every other issue has been beating around the bush. This is the real one. The law against sex with animals is completely superfluous and serves no purpose but to prevent sex, NOT abuse. If you're capable of not conflating the two, and realize that it's entirely possible for a human and animal to have sex without the animal being physically harmed, then you MUST understand this.

>>53875

>muh freedoms

This is why you keep your fictional porn to your bunk, lest you be humiliated, and anything else gets the local villagers drowning you in the >>>/bog/ faggot.

>>53887

>If what someone does hurts my feelings and grosses me out, I can infringe on their freedom all I like

Uh huh.

>>53915

just a heads up, you're not responding to me anymore which is some of these

>>53856

>>53778

If anyone else responds to you it's gonna be different people, just clarifying I've had my fill of the thread so don't think it's still the same person.