[cakaeroryrere]

Necrophilia

[Maymayfor]

:vomit:

Spec.

[RozzyLiu]

Originally posted by Lorizael
To be honest, I can't find much wrong with this. This guy probably has some issues he needs to work out, but really, in what way is he harming society? Well its not like I'm gonna be asking for any Deer sausage from this guy I tells ya.

[JohnVK]

Originally posted by Lorizael
But if a guy ****s a deer on the side of the road, what part of society is he harming? If we lock him up, who's made safer? The squeamish, obviously.

[8Zgkdeee]

No, see, I don't actually have to be a pervert in order to defend this guy. I have a very wonderful girlfriend I can go have sex with and I can sate myself with some very wonderful (and non bestial) pr0n when I can't see her.

****, I'm not even defending this guy; I said he probably has issues. I'm quite sure there's something wrong with this guy's head that makes him want to have fun with los animales, but that does not mean he shouldn't be allowed to do it.

< insert host of other wildly dangerous and crazy, but socially and legally acceptable activities that people do here >

[irridgita]

Originally posted by Lorizael


So then humans should not be allowed to have sex with humans who have AIDS? Well thats just preposterous. Everyone knows those 'people' that have aids aren't human.

[Herimoisige]

The people with aids are required by law to disclose the fact.
A dead deer is incapable of disclosing the info.

[movlabs]

Originally posted by flipside
Saves money on dating I s'pose.
Well you gotta pay for the hunting license. But I suppose the bag and tag em routine is about the same.

[FYvWldC0]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The people with aids are required by law to disclose the fact.
A dead deer is incapable of disclosing the info. A good point. But again, people are allowed to inflict harm on themselves within the law. Is giving yourself a disease lawful? To be honest, I don't really know.

If not, the solution to this then becomes to require that sex with animals be done in a safe, sanitary, and healthy way.

[xtrslots]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bill, to you there's been one point made.
That doesn't make you right, so don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back just yet. I never said otherwise. Nor do I actually expect to win this debate.

That being said, animals do not have a right to privacy (though left wing yahoos would probably like to creat such a right), and so regulating animal sexual activity should not be a problem. I don't know. We have laws against animal cruelty, and that hints to the fact that animals do have some rights. I'm pretty sure that, for example, most people would at least want to believe that pets have rights. Heck, the most common argument against beastiality is the fact that legal sex is consentual, and an animal cannot consent; ergo animals must have some rights in the first place to make consent an issue in the first place, over, say, a vibrator, or a phone plugged in the you-know-what. But then again, you talked about a right to privacy, not animal rights, but eh.

Of course, this doesn't say anything about whether or not an animal carcass has rights, but whatever.

[PoideAdelereX]

I would be against making this legal, largely on the grounds of public health. Screwing carcasses is just unsanitary, especially the carcasses of wild animals which haven't been embalmed or anything.

Also, someone could have eaten that deer, dagnabit. Venison is yummy.

[nasdfrdg]

I never knew there were so many pet pounders at ACS.

[AccusaJalsBub]

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

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

[olivelappers]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I never knew there were so many pet pounders at ACS. How about providing reasons for why this is wrong, instead of sticking to the ad hominems that I explicitly told you not to make?

[patuvammnogoo]

Originally posted by Bill3000


How about providing reasons for why this is wrong, instead of sticking to the ad hominems that I explicitly told you not to make? Guess what, Bill?
If I gave a rat's ass what you TOLD me to do or not do, I just might.
I hope mentioning a rat's ass doesn't get you too hot.

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

[L6RLnyfl]

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

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

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

[JoZertekAdv]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't think it warrants a debate.
It's pretty much a cut and dried issue. If it's a cut and try issue, you should be able to debunk us easily.

[Carol]

I Poly.

[GOLAGLULT]

Originally posted by Bill3000

If it's a cut and try issue, you should be able to debunk us easily. You've ignored all rational points so far. Why should I expect that to change? Especially when you think you can dictate to others what's acceptable in their argument.
You don't accept health or morals as valid.
What does that leave?

[Viafdrear]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


You've ignored all rational points so far. Why should I expect that to change? Especially when you think you can dictate to others what's acceptable in their argument.
You don't accept health or morals as valid.
What does that leave? Wait, what? Since when did I say that health wasn't an issue? My only post relating to the health debate here is that I was glad the point was raised as opposed to saying something which is roughly "I think necrophilia and bestiality is wrong, therefore it should be banned." I'm pretty sure you're confusing me with something else. As well, with morals, what exact "morals" are you talking about? Morals can be justified outside of mere utterance, you know. Kant, Utilitarianism, et cetera.