I remember a few weeks ago when we were talking about religion hereyou said you think everyone should believe in what he wants, as long as they don't break the law or constrain others with it (or something along those lines).
and now you say someone's a pervert because he is (supposedly!) turned on by things you aren't?
sounds a bit like double standards to me, where do you draw the line? are gay people perverts too?
I can understand that you ingnore him because you don't want to see his pics, but please stop posting 'PERVERT!' everytime his name comes up
(and now you say someone's a pervert because he is (supposedly!) turned on by things you aren't?
sounds a bit like double standards to me, where do you draw the line? are gay people perverts too?
I can understand that you ingnore him because you don't want to see his pics, but please stop posting 'PERVERT!' everytime his name comes up
pzyko Query failed.,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 22:22,
archived)
That's fair. I did start with a reasonable post, but got sucked in.I just think that a desire to look at animals sexually and, in particular, producing images portraying it, is likely to lead to animals being abused to produce more obscene images.
Much as cartoons of child abuse would upset me because they will likely bring people in to the idea of child porn and result in a child getting hurt to make that porn.
I think that blatently promoting sexual thoughts towards animals is tantamount to inciting animal cruelty.
My words were likely to have been 'as long as they don't interfere with anyone else' - the law is unlikely to come into it. I think that animals being interfered with is a reason not to do it.
(Much as cartoons of child abuse would upset me because they will likely bring people in to the idea of child porn and result in a child getting hurt to make that porn.
I think that blatently promoting sexual thoughts towards animals is tantamount to inciting animal cruelty.
My words were likely to have been 'as long as they don't interfere with anyone else' - the law is unlikely to come into it. I think that animals being interfered with is a reason not to do it.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 22:29,
archived)
fair enoughyou should blame Disney, Warner and others too then, they introduced anthropomorphic animals (with partly very clear female proportions) to millions of kids ;)
( pzyko Query failed.,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 22:37,
archived)
I don;t think Disney and co are to blameanthropomorphasising (sp?!) goes back at the very least to Egyptian Gods, but most ancient folk tales have manly beasts and feminine serpents and such
(
HappyToast Groat froth,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 22:48,
archived)
Manley beasts?Zeus used to be into bestiality in a big way.
I often ask myself 'what would Zeus do?'
It's almost always 'turn into a swan and rape a teenager'.
(I often ask myself 'what would Zeus do?'
It's almost always 'turn into a swan and rape a teenager'.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 23:00,
archived)
yesbut the "Disney is evil" theory is far more exciting
and it's "anthropomorphising" I think :)
(and it's "anthropomorphising" I think :)
pzyko Query failed.,
Wed 5 Sep 2007, 23:08,
archived)