NationStates Jolt Archive

Description:
Beastiality is, if you dont already know, is sex with non-human animals. This is a really disgusting thing, and I propose that it be banned.
Servakia proposes that any form of beastiality be banned. This includes but is not limited to
Practicing beastiality
Animal rape
Creasing websites about Beastiality
Lude acts at a pound (yes, that happens)
Violators of this act will be put on heavy observation, along with a steep fine. A second offence will result in jail time, no less than 6 months, and being forbidden to buy or own an animal again.

Erm... where did you come up with this? It's an... interesting... topic for a resolution... or something...

First of all, this might be an issue better determined by individual nations. Second of all, it is probably better if the specific punishments be determined by individual nations, sinces criminal justice systems vary so greatly from nation to nation. If you read resolutions from the past, you'll see that for the most part they aren't so specific about punishments for violators.

Hmm, this resolution would seemingly also ban intercourse between different sentient species. An elf or some other intelligent being that populates NationStates would be a "non-human animal."

From the desk of President Annette Viren: Iverness, Saragon.

Until very recently, sexual freedom was being discussed (in the form of gay marriage). We were finally making progress, and although the animal is not consenting, I think that, for the sake of those who enjoy beastiality (a group I am definitely not part of), perhaps we could study the effects of beastiality on beastialized animals, and if we find it to be unharmful to them (since we already know that genes are far too different to impregnate either the human or the animal) we don't touch it in lieu of greater sexual freedom.

And when I say unharmful, I don't just mean bodily. If we find that for any reason, the animal could not survive in the wild, beastiality (at least with that species) is banned.

Again, I AM NOT INTO BEASTIALITY!!!!!!!! DO NOT GET ANY IDEAS!!!!!!!!!! Nothing but human or near-human chicks for me.

Man, there are some pretty half-baked ideas on here, if people are reluctant to ban something like beastiality (no offense, Vivelon).

We're inclined to side with Vivelon on this. Animal cruelty we're happy to legislate against, but if your dog wants to hump you and you're willing to risk the social taboos then we don't think it's the government's place. Eating your own excrement is pretty disgusting as well, but it's not something the government should be legislating on.

I agree with banning this, and find the practice distasteful and unnatural, however feel it may be partially repealling the previous resolution Sexual Freedom and thus consideration needs to be made of these factors.

I think we can safely assume that Sexual Freedom was meant for HUMAN adults, not animal adults.

I support this inasmuchas it should be considered cruelty to animals.

I think the issues here of consent and on what rights nations assign to animals. I would be content to leave legislation to individual nations. Ecopoeia may not agree with the decisions taken but would prefer this approach to enforced legislation on an issue we feel unable to definitively declare a moral position on (understanding that many cultures hold less respect for animal rights than we do).

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

DP

TP

QP

sex with animals...*shudders* :( United Socialist States of Bonilika will address this issuse over the next couple of weeks. We will ban this in our region. Hopefull the UN will ban it too.

My first reaction to this issue is "why are they thinking about this?"
but now i see their point. what if an animal came and raped you?
that's probably how they feel. BAN IT!!!

I see no reason to ban bestiality, since:

A: It's not automatically rape/abuse
B: 'it's icky!' is not an argument.


But then, I'm not in the UN anymore, so feel free to ignore me.

It isn't necessarily either of those things but it definitely is how quite a few a STD's have been introduced into the human population. Removing the nebulous moralism and the ick factor, you then have a serious public health risk.

Many more things are dangerous to your health, should those be banned too?

After you impose your views on bestiality, could you make it illegal for people to listen to bands like Blink 182 or whatever? In fact, let's just impose our value systems on the world ... I would think mandatory industrial music programs should be fianced in every nation (twice as many in nations that want to impose their views on everybody else).

In case you missed my sarcasism, this topic has no international standing. According to the Rights and Duties resolution, it should not even be discussed.

-10kMichael

Many more things are dangerous to your health, should those be banned too?

If it poses the risk of introducing pathogens that could potentially become pandemic in the human population then I'd have to say yes.

1) I am gravely concerned by the subject matter of this debate, in relation to a large demographic of the viewers of this site being regarded as minors, and now raise the fact that moderation staff may yet close this thread due to this. And quite frankly I would not blame them. How is this not a domestic issue again?

Moving on,

2)



What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Now, please note it only mentions adults, not humans. Yes, I am nit-picking, but it clearly states adults, there is no data regarding genetic disposition, e.g. differing species. It only mention entrophy, age.

There-fore, provided that both or more parties are adult, one could possibly use being sexually mature in this case, the above legislation seems to allow the, errr, act of, errr, beastiality.

Ahem.

Further-more,

3)



RESOLVED, That the act of sexual molestation of a pre-pubescent minor is hereby outlawed in all UN member nations.

See, once again, age is the only deciding factor, and the specific here is based on puberty, sexual activity in relation to age is the deciding factor it seems.

Animal, vegetable or mineral do not seem to come into it.

In fact to my memory, the gay rights bill does not mention humans either, simply the protection of homosexuality, or same sex acts / relationships / marriage.

Ah, its nice to be back again.

"The only reason for time is so that we can observe server lag."

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

If it poses the risk of introducing pathogens that could potentially become pandemic in the human population then I'd have to say yes.

What if brushing your teeth did this too? By your logic EVERYTHING is international.

Heck, I have a better idea ... if you want to control the spread of pathogens, why not kill all the humans that don't share your value system? Like all of them!

At some point the viable control / mitigation measures have to go through means that are by their nature international. And how could this subject be any more dangerous than not practicing safe sex?


The point of this proposed resolution is to impose a MORALISTIC point of view. We should look at the larger picture ... as the minute we begin to seriously impose our domestic value systems on others I dare say we are repeating the mistakes of the 1930s - 1940s (Second World War).

10kMichael

(Yes, I just Godwin-ed this thread ... but frankly these kids need to realize that they *are* acting like Nazis.)

If it poses the risk of introducing pathogens that could potentially become pandemic in the human population then I'd have to say yes.

What if brushing your teeth did this too? By your logic EVERYTHING is international.

Heck, I have a better idea ... if you want to control the spread of pathogens, why not kill all the humans that don't share your value system? Like all of them!

At some point the viable control / mitigation measures have to go through means that are by their nature international. And how could this subject be any more dangerous than not practicing safe sex?


The point of this proposed resolution is to impose a MORALISTIC point of view. We should look at the larger picture ... as the minute we begin to seriously impose our domestic value systems on others I dare say we are repeating the mistakes of the 1930s - 1940s (Second World War).

10kMichael

(Yes, I just Godwin-ed this thread ... but frankly these kids need to realize that they *are* acting like Nazis.)

Kid? Jeez I'm a bit old to be a kid..but anyhoo. Let me explain. Brushing your teeth can never introduce or allow pathogens to cross the species barrier, unless you keep your toothbrush in your cat's anus. :x

Further, diseases don't follow lines of moralism, case in point - I'm sure quite a number of fundaloonie Christians have been exposed to the so called 'Gay plague' (HIV) and I might add this virus is related to an immunodeficiency virus that strikes primates and it is suspected that this is HIV's origin.

Given that I do my best to avoid even uttering the word 'morality' beause it is in effect a meaninglesss term in a cosmopolitan modern society and is also steeped in religiosity, not science or even common sense, we are in agreement that proposals such as this being put fourth as a moral decency issue is really half baked. Though I may agree with its principle, I don't agree with the reasoning provided.

Let me explain. Brushing your teeth can never introduce or allow pathogens to cross the species barrier, unless you keep your toothbrush in your cat's anus. :x


HIV is spread via blood. If your gums bleed and share tooth brushes, it can be spread. Maybe not as likely to happen, but where is the UN law preventing tooth brush sharing? Clearly some would (incorrectly) argue that this is an international problem as well.

The point being, ANYTHING can spread one way or another.


International standing is of critical importance ...

Once you pass an international law that doesn't have an international justification, you open a flood gate for a host of other domestic issues to be dealt with in the UN.

So we outlaw people wearing all black clothing since some cultures associate that with death cults or gangs? Of course not.

What about language? The German word "vier" sounds like the English word "fear". The English word "four" sounds like one of the Chinese words "death". Surely this could lead to "incidents"! Imagine an American tourist running around China screaming "Death Death Death", all because some German tourist was running around screaming "Fear Fear Fear".

Only when there is a clear international boundary crossed should the UN get involved. And it should be very careful to avoid making moral decisions, which in this case it is ... because thus far I've yet to see a UN resolution on needling sharing which is a known pathway for HIV infection.


Further, diseases don't follow lines of moralism, case in point - I'm sure quite a number of fundaloonie Christians have been exposed to the so called 'Gay plague' (HIV) and I might add this virus is related to an immunodeficiency virus that strikes primates and it is suspected that this is HIV's origin.


Whatever.

You may have your nation convince that is the case, but there are plenty of diesase that are spread through non morally questionable vectors that aren't being discussed ... dieases that exist, not "potential" dieases that you are using as a justification for moral legislation.

For example: SARS.

There is no sex involved in the vector. No drug use. Nothing that most societies would consider "immoral". Yet I don't see a UN resolution on SARS.

I think it is very clear this is somebody using the fear of a diease not yet discovered in order to force people to adopt their belief system. It is disgusting to see the UN being used like this. Utterly disgusting ...

That is why I made the Nazi reference, because it is EXACTLY the same type of reasoning that was used to gather up the homosexuals and the rom (qypies). "They are a threat to the state of our health!"

The Nazis were right of course. All humans are a threat to the health of other humans. If you were to kill everybody off, the chances of one human passing a new diease to another one certainly is less. But that doesn't justify the extremes to which that government went to to "protect" itself.

Now if you want to play Adolf, go right ahead and do it. Hell, make an issue using the "Got Issues" forum and I bet most of us would agree. I'd be happy to help you or anybody else work on such a domestic issue. But please, leave the UN out of making "moral" and "religious" based decisions.

Now if you want to really protect the international community from dieases, I would think that a "World Health Organization" should be created. I don't see any resolution with such an organization being defined.

Then if there is an outbreak of something, be is SARS or HIV or something else, this organization can find other ways to mitigate and reduce the spread of the diease. Ways that don't involve the pushing of a moralist / religious set of ideals.

10kMichael

are sentient beings that are closely similar to humans (elves, vampires and the like) included in the "non-human animals category"
Because in Callisdrun, marriages between regular humans and Callisdrunian Vampires are quite commonplace, and if this became international law, it would make those marriages suddenly illegal.

Let me explain. Brushing your teeth can never introduce or allow pathogens to cross the species barrier, unless you keep your toothbrush in your cat's anus. :x


HIV is spread via blood. If your gums bleed and share tooth brushes, it can be spread. Maybe not as likely to happen, but where is the UN law preventing tooth brush sharing? Clearly some would (incorrectly) argue that this is an international problem as well.

The point being, ANYTHING can spread one way or another.


International standing is of critical importance ...

Once you pass an international law that doesn't have an international justification, you open a flood gate for a host of other domestic issues to be dealt with in the UN.

So we outlaw people wearing all black clothing since some cultures associate that with death cults or gangs? Of course not.

What about language? The German word "vier" sounds like the English word "fear". The English word "four" sounds like one of the Chinese words "death". Surely this could lead to "incidents"! Imagine an American tourist running around China screaming "Death Death Death", all because some German tourist was running around screaming "Fear Fear Fear".

Only when there is a clear international boundary crossed should the UN get involved. And it should be very careful to avoid making moral decisions, which in this case it is ... because thus far I've yet to see a UN resolution on needling sharing which is a known pathway for HIV infection.


Further, diseases don't follow lines of moralism, case in point - I'm sure quite a number of fundaloonie Christians have been exposed to the so called 'Gay plague' (HIV) and I might add this virus is related to an immunodeficiency virus that strikes primates and it is suspected that this is HIV's origin.


Whatever.

You may have your nation convince that is the case, but there are plenty of diesase that are spread through non morally questionable vectors that aren't being discussed ... dieases that exist, not "potential" dieases that you are using as a justification for moral legislation.

For example: SARS.

There is no sex involved in the vector. No drug use. Nothing that most societies would consider "immoral". Yet I don't see a UN resolution on SARS.

I think it is very clear this is somebody using the fear of a diease not yet discovered in order to force people to adopt their belief system. It is disgusting to see the UN being used like this. Utterly disgusting ...

That is why I made the Nazi reference, because it is EXACTLY the same type of reasoning that was used to gather up the homosexuals and the rom (qypies). "They are a threat to the state of our health!"

The Nazis were right of course. All humans are a threat to the health of other humans. If you were to kill everybody off, the chances of one human passing a new diease to another one certainly is less. But that doesn't justify the extremes to which that government went to to "protect" itself.

Now if you want to play Adolf, go right ahead and do it. Hell, make an issue using the "Got Issues" forum and I bet most of us would agree. I'd be happy to help you or anybody else work on such a domestic issue. But please, leave the UN out of making "moral" and "religious" based decisions.

Now if you want to really protect the international community from dieases, I would think that a "World Health Organization" should be created. I don't see any resolution with such an organization being defined.

Then if there is an outbreak of something, be is SARS or HIV or something else, this organization can find other ways to mitigate and reduce the spread of the diease. Ways that don't involve the pushing of a moralist / religious set of ideals.

10kMichael

blah blha de blah blah blah...
The focus of this discussion is bestiality. Not Nazi's nor German or Chinese language studies nor Civet cats or their consumption.

my point is as follows.

1) Many STD's were introduced into the human population by activities incl. bestiality.
2) I really do not care if someone has sex with sheep.
3) I really would rather not somoene engagning in thsi activity have sex with humans, esp. one that I might sleep with or donated blood to me etc.
4) I am taking a purely AMORAL stance because, and I think we can both agree, morality is a stupid term and should be stricken from the English language.

hmm, it seems that the only time people respond to my posts are to disagree with me, and almost never to answer a question. Maybe I should have said it in statement instead of question form. :lol:

Okay this seams fine except for-
‘Creasing websites about Beastiality’

Now if someone creates a website about bestiality then they aren’t necessarily hurting animals. If someone wrote a fictional story containing bestiality how would they be effected by this?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

are sentient beings that are closely similar to humans (elves, vampires and the like) included in the "non-human animals category"
Because in Callisdrun, marriages between regular humans and Callisdrunian Vampires are quite commonplace, and if this became international law, it would make those marriages suddenly illegal.
On another note I’ve never seen any evidence linking std spread and bestiality.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Ha, well, some said AIDS came from monkey's ... or the CIA ... or aliens ... or fallling rocks from space ...

Where am I, oh darn'd, left my exploded head in another post, hope no one got it in their hair.

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

"How can one conceive of a one-party system in a organisation spanning over 37 000 nations?" - TRoK, stealing words from Charles de Gaulle.

There's a high chance that AIDS originated in primate populations, yeah, but it's almost certainly a myth that this was due to people having sex with chimpanzees. Much more likely is the possibility that it was due to the widespread practise of people killing primates for meat: when you're chopping up an ape with a machete, there's a pretty high risk of blood contamination.

True, and lets not forget we now think SARS originated from eating the meat of some kind of small cat like animal native in Asia.

...

Welll, heh heh heh, monkey's and in the newer case, cat's revenge, if you want to be macabre about it.

After all, it only takes one person whose vulnerable and only one animal whose carrying to get "it", still, there are always condoms and other forms of ...

* Stares of revulsion from on-lookers.

What ? What did I say, what did I say ?

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

blah blha de blah blah blah...


If that is all you have to say, please TRIM your replies.


The focus of this discussion is bestiality. Not Nazi's nor German or Chinese language studies nor Civet cats or their consumption.

my point is as follows.

1) Many STD's were introduced into the human population by activities incl. bestiality.
2) I really do not care if someone has sex with sheep.
3) I really would rather not somoene engagning in thsi activity have sex with humans, esp. one that I might sleep with or donated blood to me etc.
4) I am taking a purely AMORAL stance because, and I think we can both agree, morality is a stupid term and should be stricken from the English language.

This discussion has EVERYTHING to do with repeating the lessons of the Nazi's. The proposal seeks to attack a behavior based on religious / "morality" based grounds.

If it didn't, instead of targeting what is a single fringe activity it would be addressing number other possible diease vectors. But it doesn't. It takes a practice that you yourself have admitted you don't "like" (hence morality enters) and said that it is a possible diease vector and should be eliminated for the good of international relations / health.

Your stance is far from amoral. It is completely biased and as of yet fails to demostrate any international standing.

And frankly I find your attitude very reminiscent of the values and ideals held by the Nazis and many other facists. You target something different and then claim you aren't making a moral decision over and over again. When you are finished with this activity are you planning on targetting homosexuals next? Their population has a higher HIV infection rate, no? Maybe they should be rounded up "for the good of international health". What about the rom? They travel from country to country, refusing to recognize boards ... they are just a breeding ground for international criminal activity? Maybe your government should take the lead in exterminating them again "for the good of international safety".

10kMichael

are sentient beings that are closely similar to humans (elves, vampires and the like) included in the "non-human animals category"
Because in Callisdrun, marriages between regular humans and Callisdrunian Vampires are quite commonplace, and if this became international law, it would make those marriages suddenly illegal.

Well, aren't vampires undead ... immune to diease and thus unable to carry it? Also I thought they could be from many other races.

But elves on the other hand maybe can fall prey to dieases. And you're right, nobody is really talking about human - elf relationships.

However, I'm sure there is some right-wing facist just waiting to outlaw human - elf relationships under the guise of "protecting international purity" or some other stupid thing like that. ::sigh::

10kMichael

There's a high chance that AIDS originated in primate populations, yeah, but it's almost certainly a myth that this was due to people having sex with chimpanzees. Much more likely is the possibility that it was due to the widespread practise of people killing primates for meat: when you're chopping up an ape with a machete, there's a pretty high risk of blood contamination.

Thank you.

But to put the discussion back on focus in light of this information ...

The solution to pandemic dieases / viruses is not to attack individual patterned behaviors one at a time, but to create a UN organization / committee / task force charged with the responsibility of identifying new and existing risks to human health and then making medical recommendations on ways to slow the spread. All the while this group should heed by the UN resolution "Rights and Duties" and respect sovereignty.

In short, we shouldn't go around finding cures for problems that don't yet exist, and when the problems do exist, it would be far better to have mitigation measures readied to put into place than to have a series of inconsistent rules that were really created based on religious or moralistic based ideas.

Bottom line: if you (addressed to the nations in favour of this bad idea) want to ban beastiality, go to the "Got Issues" forum. Stop wasting the UN's time. Because you are pushing a religious belief -- it doesn't matter that most of us share your opinion, it is simply WRONG to abuse the UN to make international laws because you don't like something.

However, if you really want to address diease control issues, send your time drafting up some sort of "World Health Organization".

10kMichael

Well, aren't vampires undead ... immune to diease and thus unable to carry it? Also I thought they could be from many other races.

But elves on the other hand maybe can fall prey to dieases. And you're right, nobody is really talking about human - elf relationships.

However, I'm sure there is some right-wing facist just waiting to outlaw human - elf relationships under the guise of "protecting international purity" or some other stupid thing like that. ::sigh::

10kMichael

Bit off tpic but depending on what type of elves we're talking about they are also immune to disease.

OOC: Tolkien's elves for example from LOTR

Take Galadisian elves, to date there is no known report of an elvish Galadisian citizen contracting an infectious disease. The general reason for this is supposed by hte populace from mythology of said elves, see me at a later date if you want that discussion.

Anyway, I oppose hte resolution on those grounds, it would appear that it would prevent an Elvish citizen from marrying and having children with a human member of our populace (this is really all that common since it is socially abhorrent). We feel this is not logical as they can mate and produce [infertile] offspring. We therefore request that you at the least reword your proposal into more logical wording.

~Some underpaid government official
Alternate Representative to the United Nations
The Socialist Commonwealth of Caras Galadon

Bit off tpic but depending on what type of elves we're talking about they are also immune to disease.


Ah, but the subject at hand doesn't have international standing and is thus off topic as well.

Your point is well taken -- however -- I'm sure that there are cases when humans having sex with animals has not resulted in a diease being spread to either population. That hasn't stopped the proponents of this idea to stop. They don't care if their idea makes sense or not ... they don't care if it has international standing. They don't like the way others do something and will do whatever it takes to make that activity illegal or destroy those people.

Basically the authors of this terrible idea would in the case of elves say that we'd have to kill them all because a few of them might spread diseases to the humans ... "the choosen people" or some such rubbish.

The proponents don't really care about human health. We've all heard of fringe groups being attacked for "health" reasons before ... and we all know why: there are hateful people who seek to control or destroy anything they don't agree with. This idea is exactly that.


OOC: Tolkien's elves for example from LOTR

Take Galadisian elves, to date there is no known report of an elvish Galadisian citizen contracting an infectious disease. The general reason for this is supposed by hte populace from mythology of said elves, see me at a later date if you want that discussion.

Anyway, I oppose hte resolution on those grounds, it would appear that it would prevent an Elvish citizen from marrying and having children with a human member of our populace (this is really all that common since it is socially abhorrent). We feel this is not logical as they can mate and produce [infertile] offspring. We therefore request that you at the least reword your proposal into more logical wording.


[OOC: Somehow I doubt somebody who seriously wants to push his / her personal religious / moralistic belief on the United Nations has read Tolkein -- otherwise he / she would immediately think of the marriage of Arwen and Aragorn. But didn't Arwen become mortal by staying behind in Middle Earth? But trust me, talking about elves is much more fitting with the NationStates UN than the topic at hand -- there are actually nations with elves in the game!]

10kMichael

Beastiality is disgusting and should be banned, i beg you to oppose ladies and gentlemen

are sentient beings that are closely similar to humans (elves, vampires and the like) included in the "non-human animals category"
Because in Callisdrun, marriages between regular humans and Callisdrunian Vampires are quite commonplace, and if this became international law, it would make those marriages suddenly illegal.

Well, aren't vampires undead ... immune to diease and thus unable to carry it? Also I thought they could be from many other races.

But elves on the other hand maybe can fall prey to dieases. And you're right, nobody is really talking about human - elf relationships.

However, I'm sure there is some right-wing facist just waiting to outlaw human - elf relationships under the guise of "protecting international purity" or some other stupid thing like that. ::sigh::

10kMichael
Callisdrunian Vampires are not undead, they are very much alive. They simply happen to have fangs and a need to consume human blood in order to stay in good health. They are just as susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases as the normal population is.
These beings, like some elves, are similar enough to humans to produce offspring.
I really don't care either way about this bestiality thing, but if it's going to be banned, there should be an exception in human-elf and human-vampire relations.

Beastiality is disgusting and should be banned, i beg you to oppose ladies and gentlemen

Sounds like a great idea for a national issue.

Go to the Got Issues forum and make it happen. Then each of our nations can decide how we want to deal with this domestic issue.

10kMichael

Mosstania believes bestiality, however disgusting and seemingly "immoral", is an issue that does not need to be discussed. Bestiality can be classified as a "fetish", that is, an eccentric preference in sexual activity and/or pornography. Other fetishes are usually dismissed as odd, but still legal, including, but not limited to fetishes of urination and defecation on sexual partners (see R.Kelly).

The point I am trying to make is, "What makes this fetish of bestiality different from other eccentric sexual preferences, and thus can be determined as threatening?" To me this does not constitute a need for a bestiality ban0

Second, this must be addressed.

After you impose your views on bestiality, could you make it illegal for people to listen to bands like Blink 182 or whatever? In fact, let's just impose our value systems on the world ... I would think mandatory industrial music programs should be fianced in every nation (twice as many in nations that want to impose their views on everybody else).


We Mosstanians are interested in creating a proposal banning Blink 182 and wishes to collaborate witht he Mikitivitian government on this at once.

Yakov Bershak
Representative to the United Nations
Empire of Mosstania

:shock: i dont know about any of you guys, but even the oppressed peoples of donald trump already know its not right to have sex with animals. :shock:

As said before, Callisdrun's only issue is how the phrase "non-human animals" is defined. Our fear is that such a resolution could be used to prevent intermarriage between Callisdrun's normal and vampire citizens, which at present is commonplace. Callisdrun would not vote against such a resolution if it were less ambiguous.

well then i guess it would have to be defined as, 'no living creature may have sex with another living creature unless that creature is able to consent to the act' In the animal kingdom this would not be necessary because it is a natural process for animals of their own kind to procreate with each other. it is NOT a natural process for humans to be engaging in sexual acts with anything that cannot give verbal consent

quite frankly, i dont see why a vampire would want to marry a "normal" person anyway....they wouldnt live as long as the vampire, thus i would think that shortly after marriage, the normal partner would eventually succumb to vampirism (i dont know if thats a word, but i liked it)

:shock: i dont know about any of you guys, but even the oppressed peoples of donald trump already know its not right to have sex with animals. :shock:

Can you quote a single nation that has said that it is "right" to have sex with animals?

The issue isn't sex with animals, it is that this is something best dealt with on a domestic level. It isn't the United Nations job to tell you that you dress funny ... and by the way Donald, you do look like your mother dresses you.

And it isn't the UN's job to tell people what to stick what in what.

[OOC: Has the real UN ever talked about this issue? I've never seen a UN document talk about it. REASON WHY: it is a domestic issue. That is something to think about.]

10kMichael

The very thought of beastiality in my world is non-existant as it is anyway so it wont take any effect on Zortroth as it is as my people wouldnt have a clue what it is and wont listen.


Tytrox Throx
2000th Generation Emperor
Imperial Empire of Zortroth
Commander General Zortrothian Army

* The Rep of Komokom is then seen running through the thread, waving a big white flag with "DOMESTIC ISSUE" written on it in the blood of a frying-pan victim. His own manical laughter follows behind him.

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

The Divine Empire is most amused at what the pathetic fools in the United Nations deal with...

we shoot anyone we *suspect* of bestiality. But, you poor sods don't have that option.

:shock: i dont know about any of you guys, but even the oppressed peoples of donald trump already know its not right to have sex with animals. :shock:

Hmmm, heh heh heh ...

I can imagine the headline from the "Trump Times" :

BEASTIALITY IS FIRED

:wink: Okay, I - must - be sober now.

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)

blah blha de blah blah blah...


If that is all you have to say, please TRIM your replies.


The focus of this discussion is bestiality. Not Nazi's nor German or Chinese language studies nor Civet cats or their consumption.

my point is as follows.

1) Many STD's were introduced into the human population by activities incl. bestiality.
2) I really do not care if someone has sex with sheep.
3) I really would rather not somoene engagning in thsi activity have sex with humans, esp. one that I might sleep with or donated blood to me etc.
4) I am taking a purely AMORAL stance because, and I think we can both agree, morality is a stupid term and should be stricken from the English language.

This discussion has EVERYTHING to do with repeating the lessons of the Nazi's. The proposal seeks to attack a behavior based on religious / "morality" based grounds.

If it didn't, instead of targeting what is a single fringe activity it would be addressing number other possible diease vectors. But it doesn't. It takes a practice that you yourself have admitted you don't "like" (hence morality enters) and said that it is a possible diease vector and should be eliminated for the good of international relations / health.

Your stance is far from amoral. It is completely biased and as of yet fails to demostrate any international standing.

And frankly I find your attitude very reminiscent of the values and ideals held by the Nazis and many other facists. You target something different and then claim you aren't making a moral decision over and over again. When you are finished with this activity are you planning on targetting homosexuals next? Their population has a higher HIV infection rate, no? Maybe they should be rounded up "for the good of international health". What about the rom? They travel from country to country, refusing to recognize boards ... they are just a breeding ground for international criminal activity? Maybe your government should take the lead in exterminating them again "for the good of international safety".

10kMichael

Perhaps you should ask the person who started this thread to broaden the topic a little.

Zeig Heil!

*baa-aa-aahh*

*nayyyyyy*

*oink*

:shock:

There is no need for a UN resolution on this issue as it should be a domestic decision. In addition it is highly likely that most nations have laws banning bestiality, which makes the resolution unnecessary anyway.

In Raging Lunatics this sexual practice is illegal with either rehabilitation or a custodial sentence in a labor camp as sentencing options.

Ah, but the question yet remains I thought, do past resolutions allow the possibility of beastiality being permitted, and protected as a sexual act between consenting parties ?

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Légalité Avec L'Égalité

An animal cannot give consent to sex with a human so past resolutions do not legalize bestiality.

I understand that under the guise of Human Rights, beastiallity can be labled moraly wrong. However I fail to see why this is an international issue. the UN should not be focused on the details of an individuals sex life or lack thereof. But should be focused on greater issues such as the transmition, prevention, and immunization of STD's and other more global topics that affect everyone. Instead of debating how to ban or protect those who take part in beastiallity, why don't we target the plagues that can effect everyone. Let the individual countries choose whether or not they wish to ban beastiallity. Presented with the option, I would make illegal the practice of beastiallity in all of it's forms. I do not need an international resolution to do so, as I'm sure many of you also do not need. I do however desire medical research data so that my countries doctors and medical proffesionals can develope new medicines and treatments for afore mentioned plagues.

An animal cannot give consent to sex with a human so past resolutions do not legalize bestiality.

What makes you say that?

I say we should all ban beastiallity.

that was a low blow about my mother. :cry:

i wish she would fix my hair too

I say we should all ban beastiallity.

Juanstantinople, that comment was kind of the whole reason these 50-odd replies went up, because someone just basically said exactly the same thing as you "lets ban bestiality". So basically what that comment would do is get us going in circles. :roll: whoa... dizzy

well then i guess it would have to be defined as, 'no living creature may have sex with another living creature unless that creature is able to consent to the act' In the animal kingdom this would not be necessary because it is a natural process for animals of their own kind to procreate with each other. it is NOT a natural process for humans to be engaging in sexual acts with anything that cannot give verbal consent

quite frankly, i dont see why a vampire would want to marry a "normal" person anyway....they wouldnt live as long as the vampire, thus i would think that shortly after marriage, the normal partner would eventually succumb to vampirism (i dont know if thats a word, but i liked it)

Callisdrunian Vampires, contrary to the traditional vampiric myth, are not immortal, in fact, they are far from it. In a vampire-normal relationship, the normal partner would not "get" vampirism because it's not that sort of thing. The only result of a Callisdrunian vampire feeding off a normal person is that the normal human would have some blood loss and fang marks.

Then they aren't vampires in truth. Instead they are something else: a succubus or other creature. The name vampire is contrary to their very nature and thus they aren't vampires or they must cease to exist.

Sorry to burst your bandwagon

Then they aren't vampires in truth. Instead they are something else: a succubus or other creature. The name vampire is contrary to their very nature and thus they aren't vampires or they must cease to exist.

Sorry to burst your bandwagon

They can't be succubi, because succubi are a form of female demon. And they fit exactly into what I always pictured vampires as. They aren't vampires just because YOU say they aren't? They fit quite closely with a type of vampire in hungarian myth, the "Moroii" (I think that's how it's spelled) or "living vampire." They are creatures entirely dependent upon the consumption of human blood in order to keep their bodies functioning. I don't see how that isn't vampirism. How you would come to the conclusion that a callisdrunian vampire is really "a succubus," which is a female demon that has intercourse with men while they sleep, is beyond me. You seem to be getting the impression that my nation is comprised ONLY of vampires, which is quite contrary to the actual case. And that's why I denote them as "callisdrunian vampires," to make the distinction between them and the type of vampire that is in fact a corpse. Either type is fictional, so why does it matter. And what right to you say that some of MY characters "must cease to exist"? Since when do you get to decide what characters I can and cannot have? Just because your pre-concieved notion of what a FICTIONAL creature has to be? I don't see anyone telling people that they can't have elves just because their elves aren't LOTR type elves. I don't tell you what kind of characters you can and cannot have. People seem to think vampires have to be undead, but that is only the myth that has always gotten more attention. People ignore the Moroii, the living vampire, probably because frankly, they don't sound as freaky. But for my purposes, a Moroii Vampire fit better.

It is already against the law to be cruel to animals. This is just another unneccesary law. Just enforce the one that is already on the books.

Since when is sex cruel?

Since when is sex cruel?

well, when it's rape, and since I guess we are defining animals as creatures not able to give consent, rape is what it would be.

Wait wait...what fun is there in banning bestiality?

Seriously...think about the joys of...well...yeah


VISIT THIS SITE!

http://s2.invisionfree.com/The_North_Pacific/index.php?s=5f7274a18a8f7c3c7d40ac7c41f7c782&showtopic=1398&view=getnewpost

Since when is sex cruel?

well, when it's rape, and since I guess we are defining animals as creatures not able to give consent, rape is what it would be.

Prove to me that animals cannot give consent.

Because obviously they can. Or are you telling me that when 2 wolves mate, it's mutual rape? Since according to you, neither of them can give consent.

Since when is sex cruel?

well, when it's rape, and since I guess we are defining animals as creatures not able to give consent, rape is what it would be.

Prove to me that animals cannot give consent.

Because obviously they can. Or are you telling me that when 2 wolves mate, it's mutual rape? Since according to you, neither of them can give consent.

:lol: well, i guess if you try sticking your penis in an animals hoo ha and she bites you, i guess you can assume that that means no. (and vice versa of course)

Since when is sex cruel?

well, when it's rape, and since I guess we are defining animals as creatures not able to give consent, rape is what it would be.

Prove to me that animals cannot give consent.

Because obviously they can. Or are you telling me that when 2 wolves mate, it's mutual rape? Since according to you, neither of them can give consent.

wolves are able to communicate with each other whether they want to or not. Wolves cannot communicate that precisely with humans. They have a different communication system. If you ask your pet dog "hey, want to have sex?", how are you supposing that she'd be able to voice her consent or lack thereof? It's the same as asking the question to someone who speaks an entirely different language than you, without either of you being able to understand the finer points of each other's language.
And how many people who have intercourse with animals do you suppose ask those animals for consent? I'd be willing to bet not many.

Look look, all this technical garbage is interesting and all but seriously- lets keep bestiality legal because its funny and if you have bestiality in your nation, you're bound to have some wackos there- that always makes things fun.

As everbody knows, sex is defined as an act between a man and woman who are legally married to one another and monogamous. Further, the only acceptable sex act that is defined as between a man and a woman penile/vaginal intercourse in the missionary position.

Any other sex act between anyone or anything is disgusting and evil and exectution is warranted.

Since when is sex cruel?

well, when it's rape, and since I guess we are defining animals as creatures not able to give consent, rape is what it would be.

Prove to me that animals cannot give consent.

Because obviously they can. Or are you telling me that when 2 wolves mate, it's mutual rape? Since according to you, neither of them can give consent.

wolves are able to communicate with each other whether they want to or not. Wolves cannot communicate that precisely with humans. They have a different communication system. If you ask your pet dog "hey, want to have sex?", how are you supposing that she'd be able to voice her consent or lack thereof? It's the same as asking the question to someone who speaks an entirely different language than you, without either of you being able to understand the finer points of each other's language.
And how many people who have intercourse with animals do you suppose ask those animals for consent? I'd be willing to bet not many.

So I guess a mute person cannot have sex, since he/she cannot *say* 'yes' or 'no'?


The foremost considered issue when considering bestiality is that of consent. Can an animal consent? Popular wisdom says no. Before determining whether they may consent, however, one must consider what consent is and what it means.

Consent, most essentially and basically, is agreeing to participate in an action, or to have an action done upon you, of your own free will. But one must consider more than that; you must have proper knowledge of what the action is, and all information about the proposed situation that may affect your decision. You may consent to have sex with a person, but your decision may have been different had you known that they were married; if s/he did not tell you that, your ability to consent was tampered with. One must also make the decision autonomously, without threats or coercive rewards.

So how much of this really applies to animals? An animal can say yes or no, though they cannot speak human language; it is obvious to even the densest of humans that a dog?s snarl or a horse?s raised hoof means "Back off." Similarily, animals will ask for sex, though the signals can be less blatant and thus one must pay attention to their behavior to interpret them, especially as we are taught in polite society to ignore them. The issue, however, is simple; if an animal wants sex, it will ask for it or consent to sexual advances; if it does not, it will resist, fight back or at the very least make it clear with reluctant body language. At that point the action becomes immoral should the human continue their actions, for they are obviously forcing sex upon a being who does not want it.

But may animals give fully informed voluntary consent? Do they know everything they need to know? The question of ?fully informed voluntary consent? has always seemed strange to me when considering animals. What does one mean when talking about ?fully informed?? Would your marital status matter to a dog? That the consent is voluntary should be quite obvious - it is nearly impossible to manipulate or cajole an animal into doing something it truly doesn?t enjoy. (Just try to convince a 1500-pound clydesdale to accept your advances when it?s not interested.) And animals do enjoy sex and sexual stimulation; the numerous cases of dogs humping various human?s legs should make that obvious. It is even possible to use sex as a reward, much like a food treat or favorite toy. Most of the considerations humans must take under advisement are a non-issue for animals. Animals know everything they need to know; so far as their sphere of knowledge and consciousness is concerned, as far as it is relevant they are autonomous beings giving voluntary consent. Saying that animals cannot consent because they simply cannot understand what humans would need to understand to consent is an inherently unfair exclusion; if an animal cannot understand something, how could it be relevant to them? And why on Earth would we expect the same levels of understanding for a different species, who by definition has a different capacity and requirement for understanding the world? To expect the human of the non-human is to expect the unneccesary and the unobtainable.

There is also the concern that a particular animal?s loyalty to an owner would make it unwillingly consent to his/her advances. This is patently anthropomorphization; even if an animal is completely devoted to it?s owner and is utterly gentle and submissive, it will not hide it?s own reactions. If it does not want to have sex, at the very least it will pull away and act reluctant or uncomfortable, at which point the person (who should be fluent in the species? body language, just as you should speak a common language with your human partner) should stop. If they do not, it has become rape. Rape is rape regardless of species, and rape is immoral.

As it has been stated and as it should be obvious, animals can and do enjoy sex; their libidos are close enough to ours so that many species are known to masturbate or even engage in recreational sex. Also, given the slightest bit of encouragement, animals will of their own free will seek out sexual attention from humans. They will even do so with discouragement - the stereotype of the incorrigable dog humping a human?s leg, for instance.

On the flip side, can humans understand what sex means to the animal? It can be very difficult to understand certain behaviors, given the language barrier, not to mention the species barrier. However, it is not impossible. Animal trainers and handlers must understand body language; often their lives depend on it, as is the case with elephants, wild cats, or wolves. As far as sex goes, sex may not always be an expression of love or even of affection (as is true with humans); male-male mounting behavior in many species is an expression of dominance and agression. However, these differences do not mean that we are unable to understand non-human sex. We must simply observe and study.

However, even with consent, even with understanding, is bestiality against the best interests of either participant? Humans can want things that are essentially bad for us; merely because we consent to or understand something does not mean that going ahead and doing it will be good for us. The same goes for animals; their liking for antifreeze is conclusive proof that they can want things that are bad for them. Indeed, it is possible to invite negative consequences - such as infection or injury - if one is not careful while engaging in bestiality. But mere injury or sickness would not make it *wrong* - that can happen during human sex as well. Foolish or imprudent does not make immoral.

However, if the act of bestiality were wrong simply because of the nature of the act, then it would be a function of the entire domestic animal - human relationship. Animals and humans collaborate on many areas of life; from working animals to lap pets, we live in close quarters, we share resources, we become deeply emotionally attached to each other. We consider them family; there are pet hospitals and pet cemetaries. People mourn their pet?s death and take joy in shared activities. The relationship between humans and domestic animals is extremely close; with all that emotional intensity, sex can rightly be considered an extension of that relationship. Whether this relationship itself is wrong is a huge argument that will not be considered here; suffice it to say that I do not consider every pet owner and farmer to be immoral simply because they have close relationships with animals. Nor are bestialists immoral simply for extending that relationship into the sexual realm. An action cannot be wrong simply because it is sexual; there must be other basis.

As everbody knows, sex is defined as an act between a man and woman who are legally married to one another and monogamous. Further, the only acceptable sex act that is defined as between a man and a woman penile/vaginal intercourse in the missionary position.

Any other sex act between anyone or anything is disgusting and evil and exectution is warranted.

Not if you are in The UN.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Des, my dear, you forgot to say "Check-mate", :wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

[quote="Shawnathan"]As everbody knows, sex is defined as an act between a man and woman who are legally married to one another and monogamous. Further, the only acceptable sex act that is defined as between a man and a woman penile/vaginal intercourse in the missionary position.
quote]

********

Which dictionary did you get that definition from? Intercourse is intercourse married or not; same species or not.

And missionary position or not.

Did I say that out loud :wink: ?

- Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

( Concern : Is this content still okay, regarding minors on the site ? )

Des, my dear, you forgot to say "Check-mate", :wink: Sorry.

Ach-hem

Check…he he.

Sorry

Check-Mate.

Did I do good?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

As everbody knows, sex is defined as an act between a man and woman who are legally married to one another and monogamous. Further, the only acceptable sex act that is defined as between a man and a woman penile/vaginal intercourse in the missionary position.

Any other sex act between anyone or anything is disgusting and evil and exectution is warranted.

Um... no. Your experience appears to be very limited. Sex between non-married people is still sex. I have no idea where you got that preposterous definition. By your spectacularly stupid definition, if a couple are having intercourse in the missionary position, and they roll over so that the woman is on top, it ceases to be sex.

Besides, for getting the woman to orgasm, the missionary position isn't even very good.

I cannot fathom where you thought up that extremely narrow, false definition of sex, but it's incorrect, and therefore has no merit.

Hmm. I think my sarcasm detector must be malfunctioning.

Since when is sex cruel?

well, when it's rape, and since I guess we are defining animals as creatures not able to give consent, rape is what it would be.

Prove to me that animals cannot give consent.

Because obviously they can. Or are you telling me that when 2 wolves mate, it's mutual rape? Since according to you, neither of them can give consent.

wolves are able to communicate with each other whether they want to or not. Wolves cannot communicate that precisely with humans. They have a different communication system. If you ask your pet dog "hey, want to have sex?", how are you supposing that she'd be able to voice her consent or lack thereof? It's the same as asking the question to someone who speaks an entirely different language than you, without either of you being able to understand the finer points of each other's language.
And how many people who have intercourse with animals do you suppose ask those animals for consent? I'd be willing to bet not many.

So I guess a mute person cannot have sex, since he/she cannot *say* 'yes' or 'no'?



I never said verbal communication. Of course a mute person can have sex, because they can still communicate their wishes to their partner. They still are able to converse in the same language. An animal cannot. The animal cannot grasp most of the human's language, verbal or written. The animal will not know what the human is asking, and so will not be able to answer the question.

Please let this not turn into a topic about human sexual positions.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Please let this no turn into a topic about human sexual positions.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

Sorry, I was just pointing out the absurdity of an earlier post.

wolves are able to communicate with each other whether they want to or not. Wolves cannot communicate that precisely with humans. They have a different communication system. If you ask your pet dog "hey, want to have sex?", how are you supposing that she'd be able to voice her consent or lack thereof? It's the same as asking the question to someone who speaks an entirely different language than you, without either of you being able to understand the finer points of each other's language.

So I guess a mute person cannot have sex, since he/she cannot *say* 'yes' or 'no'?



I never said verbal communication. Of course a mute person can have sex, because they can still communicate their wishes to their partner. They still are able to converse in the same language. An animal cannot. The animal cannot grasp most of the human's language, verbal or written. The animal will not know what the human is asking, and so will not be able to answer the question.

You never said verbal communication? Then what was that about:

It's the same as asking the question to someone who speaks an entirely different language than you, without either of you being able to understand the finer points of each other's language.

As to how to tell how an animal consents or not; I won't get into the finer details, but any (adult) animal will, perhaps know what you are trying to do.
A dog who does not approve, ie, does not consent, will whine, try to move away, cover her rear with her tail, perhaps even growl and bite if you press on.
If she does not, and indeed assumes an, er, appropriate position, she obviously consents.

Off course, no-one in their right mind will literally ask his dog "Do you want to have sex?", seriously, and expect to get an answer. Just because it appears to be the only way you can think of of getting someone's attention, interest and consent does not make it so.

Off course, no-one in their right mind will literally ask his dog "Do you want to have sex?", seriously, and expect to get an answer.

* Asks his dog,

" So, you up for some horizontal monster mash ? "

* Dog wags tail.

Note : - And, not in THAT way.

:wink:

Now, do we all realise how utterly ridiculous this thread has become ?

And I think I am being quite fair by talking as though it had credibility in the first place. I am still surprised the powers that be let it continue,

When we remember many minors access this site.

But, as things stand it seems,

...

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

I'm beginning to agree with Hakartopia.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

The Empire of Kerubia agrees that beastiality has no reason to exist in human life. Such disgusting acts should be not be allowed. Humans should only have sexual intercourse with other humans, and any deviation from this truth is sickening.

wolves are able to communicate with each other whether they want to or not. Wolves cannot communicate that precisely with humans. They have a different communication system. If you ask your pet dog "hey, want to have sex?", how are you supposing that she'd be able to voice her consent or lack thereof? It's the same as asking the question to someone who speaks an entirely different language than you, without either of you being able to understand the finer points of each other's language.

So I guess a mute person cannot have sex, since he/she cannot *say* 'yes' or 'no'?



I never said verbal communication. Of course a mute person can have sex, because they can still communicate their wishes to their partner. They still are able to converse in the same language. An animal cannot. The animal cannot grasp most of the human's language, verbal or written. The animal will not know what the human is asking, and so will not be able to answer the question.

You never said verbal communication? Then what was that about:

It's the same as asking the question to someone who speaks an entirely different language than you, without either of you being able to understand the finer points of each other's language.

As to how to tell how an animal consents or not; I won't get into the finer details, but any (adult) animal will, perhaps know what you are trying to do.
A dog who does not approve, ie, does not consent, will whine, try to move away, cover her rear with her tail, perhaps even growl and bite if you press on.
If she does not, and indeed assumes an, er, appropriate position, she obviously consents.

Off course, no-one in their right mind will literally ask his dog "Do you want to have sex?", seriously, and expect to get an answer. Just because it appears to be the only way you can think of of getting someone's attention, interest and consent does not make it so.

You can ask someone a question in writing, I still did not say "verbal communication" anywhere.
I have never heard of an animal consenting to sexual relations with a human. Ever. I've never even heard of an animal putting up no resistance to the human's advances.

Anyway, this thread has become quite ludicrous. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, at least that's the way it looks to me, and in that case, there is no point in arguing with you because you'll try to counter everything I say.
I'm done. If people want to be that screwed up, fine, although I feel sorry for the animals.

* Considers asking moderation to [lock] thread, in regards to my on-going concern over the content in relation to possibility of viewing by minors.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ. Someone please explain to me how a debate over nuclearism and the perils of MAD theory lasts six posts, but when we talk about lubing a sheeps anus and putting on some paddock boots everyone comes out of the woodwork to argue? Please?

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ. Someone please explain to me how a debate over nuclearism and the perils of MAD theory lasts six posts, but when we talk about lubing a sheeps anus and putting on some paddock boots everyone comes out of the woodwork to argue? Please?

I bet if I said that several pages ago people would have paid attention then ...

...

:shock: :shock: :shock:

OMG !

I'VE GOT 1000 POST TO MY NAME !

Brilliant ! :D

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Is that a celebration of joy? Or a celebrationg of "Holy shit. Imagine all the productive stuff I could've done with the time it took me to write all 1000 of those posts"?

...

:shock:

...

" Both "

( Pretend emoticon for " Stoopid, yet proud, grin " )

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Negotiator.

::insert emoticon of a smiley hijacking a thread::

See, now you've gone and screwed it all up. You're at 1003 posts. Quick, go back and edit your last!

" Nope ! "

( Stoopid yet proud grin again, ! )

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Negotiator. :D

Oh. Well, okay then.

::shrug::

It was just a suggestion, after all. Crimany.

Anyway, this thread has become quite ludicrous. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, at least that's the way it looks to me, and in that case, there is no point in arguing with you because you'll try to counter everything I say.
I'm done. If people want to be that screwed up, fine, although I feel sorry for the animals.

Funny, I was feeling the same way about you.
Frankly, your arguments seem to come down to 'nu-uh'.

Frankly, your arguments seem to come down to 'nu-uh'.

No offense, but this is a debate about the merits of beastiality. Were you honestly expecting some kind of striking rhetorical critcism? Call me crazy, but I wouldn't expect too much intellectual argumentation in a thread devoted to the question of shagging your family pet.

Frankly, your arguments seem to come down to 'nu-uh'.

No offense, but this is a debate about the merits of beastiality. Were you honestly expecting some kind of striking rhetorical critcism? Call me crazy, but I wouldn't expect too much intellectual argumentation in a thread devoted to the question of shagging your family pet.

Well yeah, I suppose I still have too much hope for humanity.

this is the most disgusting thing i have heard of. do people actually do that. they have some serious issues if they even think stuff like that is ok. :x

Great arguments. That'll really sway us to your side of the issue. :roll:

this is the most disgusting thing i have heard of. do people actually do that. they have some serious issues if they even think stuff like that is ok.

Ah, short and to the point.

Naturally, it does not make any point, so don't ask me what the point is.

:wink:

I love it when people rave and rant, it reminds me of those nice crazy people on side-walks with signs declaring the end is nigh and point and scream "The Anti-Christ!" at any moving or not moving object, and most people too, till the police drag them away ...

... ( ( ( SIREN ) ) )

Ah, right on cue. :D

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

Well, on the plus side, we successfully derailed the topic for a little bit, right? And if all goes according to plan, we might be able to go at this for days. Tell you what, I'll bring the tent; Komokom, you can bring firewood and the grill. Anyone volunteer to bring food? We'll make it a party.

* Turns up with fire-wood, also turns up with an small yet almost ornate cast iron grill to put over the fire. Also brings some marsh-mellows. Suggests Sophista calls some one to bring some good booze, it can get cold out here, which reminds me, I brought this bag of proposals that failed, figured their good enough to fuel the fire in the Strangers Bar, so why not ... :wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

<--- Not a Moderator, just a Know It All.

I come baring food and flavoured vodka. Can I join the party?

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?