Conquer Club

" just as long as the horse likes it..."

Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?

you obviously have zero clue what you are talking about

Back in the 90s, wetter was better and Animality was cool.

NomadPatriot wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?

you obviously have zero clue what you are talking about

So your position is that the government should not interfere in people's lives by outlawing bestiality?

mrswdk wrote:

NomadPatriot wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

who exactly is advocating for big government.. ?

you obviously have zero clue what you are talking about

So your position is that the government should not interfere in people's lives by outlawing bestiality?

oh.. so you cannot answer the question...
you need to deflect

gotcha

>deflects
>follows up by accusing others of deflection
>defleption

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.

What if you marry the animal?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.

Three possible responses to this statement. Pick one at random - lucky dip!

show

show

show

Dukasaur wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.

What if you marry the animal?

What if you marry a child?

mrswdk wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Just another Republican advocating for a Big Government that goes around trying to legislate people's private behaviour.

Depending on how you define rights of animals, outlawing bestiality is no more big government than outlawing normal rape.

Three possible responses to this statement. Pick one at random - lucky dip!

show

Saxi may be fluffy and white but he ain't a sheep.

show

Again only in the sense that outlawing rape or murder is regulating behavior. Which means it's more a protection of rights than regulating behavior.

show

Dairy farm a.i. is no more sexual assault than a physical at the doctor's office. Or, to keep it in the realm of animal husbandry, spaying or neutering your cat is aggravated battery.

Honestly, i expect more from you--this is symmetry-level stuff at best.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Dairy farm a.i. is no more sexual assault than a physical at the doctor's office.

Under English law, forcefully penetrating someone with a foreign object is sexual assault. If you're arguing that having sex with an animal is rape, I'm arguing that sticking your hand up a cow's vagina is sexual assault*. And if you're not defining having sex with an animal as rape, I have no idea why you mentioned rape in the first place.

Incidentally I'm pretty sure it was Mets who supports the position that the treatment of dairy cows is rape, not Symmetry. The Guardian hasn't run a story on dairy farming for a while so there's no way Symmetry would be interested.



*unless you'd rather use American federal law, which defines any unwanted penetration of the vagina or anus with any object to be rape.

So when a woman goes for a pap smear she's been raped?

Sticking hands into animals, which must be done occasionally (like delivering a foal or something) is a procedure like any humdrum medical procedure. I've delivered several foals and hundreds of pigs, it's asinine to suggest it's sexual assault. It's not for anyone's sexual gratification and sometimes it needs to be done. Like seriously, your inability to grasp this concept is bewildering. For a hundred years people stuck thermometers into babies' anuses to check their temperature because it was a necessity, not for some sick kinks, and like animals (which they are), they cannot consent to this.

Because animals inhabit that weird area where they are property but also living, they obviously can't consent to either animal husbandry procedures or rape. But since raping them has no material benefit to them it's illegal. You could get even more philosophical and say rape probably doesn't bother them either since that's an anthropomorphized view of an animal's psyche, so i guess anti-bestiality laws are more for a human's peace of mind than anything else.

Ma'am Complains about Republican's wanting Big Government, then in an attempt to defend her position, she sites numerous Laws & numerous Government Agencies that issue various Permits.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:So when a woman goes for a pap smear she's been raped?

No, because she consented to the pap smear.

Sticking hands into animals, which must be done occasionally (like delivering a foal or something) is a procedure like any humdrum medical procedure.

Helping a pregnant animal to give birth (what you’re talking about) is one thing. A human impregnating a cow purely to get it to produce milk for human consumption (what I’m talking about) is completely different. Do you understand how those two situations are different?

But since raping them has no material benefit to them

Right, and farming them has no benefit to them either.

You could get even more philosophical and say rape probably doesn't bother them either since that's an anthropomorphized view of an animal's psyche, so i guess anti-bestiality laws are more for a human's peace of mind than anything else.

Completely true. It’s like laws permitting alcohol but outlawing marijuana, they’re just a sop to a certain layer of society.

Just swap ‘cow’ for ‘human’ if you’re struggling to see the difference between the situations:

If a doctor touches a woman’s vagina while helping her give birth, is it rape?

If a farmer locks a woman in a shed and repeatedly sticks sperm in her vagina to make her pregnant, so that she’ll lactate and he can collect her breast milk, is it rape?

mrswdk wrote:Just swap ‘cow’ for ‘human’ if you’re struggling to see the difference between the situations:

If a doctor touches a woman’s vagina while helping her give birth, is it rape?

If a farmer locks a woman in a shed and repeatedly sticks sperm in her vagina to make her pregnant, so that she’ll lactate and he can collect her breast milk, is it rape?

neither of those is rape.. rape is defined as a sexual activity..

In the US it's defined as: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Hope you haven't been labouring under any false impressions all these years, NP. Maybe at least take a break from the Slutwalks until you've had a chance to do some research?

mrswdk wrote:In the US it's defined as: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Hope you haven't been labouring under any false impressions all these years, NP. Maybe at least take a break from the Slutwalks until you've had a chance to do some research?

I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..

neither of the 2 things you described involve the penetration of the vagina or anus by the sex organ of another person.

- touching the vagina is not penetration.

- just because a farmer locks the shed door doesn't mean the woman did not consent. privacy would be a key factor for a artificial insemination procedure in regards to the woman's comfort level.
operating rooms in hospitals can only be entered by authorized personal .. and the woman is covered with sheets.. if the procedure is being conducted in a shed.. locking the door would be a good way to keep that procedure private... maybe the woman asked the farmer to lock the door.. maybe the woman makes a living selling her breast milk..



How much does breast milk sell for?
Moms sell the breast milk for an average of $2.50 an ounce.... that's $320.00 per Gallon..
sounds like a pretty lucrative side business women could make money on..


but you are ok with raping animals. there shouldn't be any laws regarding that... just as long as it isn't a person.. .
we all know this fact because you are still on this thread defending Beastialitality

Another classic back-and-forth with NP:

NomadPatriot wrote:I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..

It's great that you've given such hard and detailed thought to the question of exactly where the line between 'rape' and 'not rape' is though.

mrswdk wrote:Another classic back-and-forth with NP:

NomadPatriot wrote:I just was wanting you to post that definition. .... thanks for proving me right..

It's great that you've given such hard and detailed thought to the question of exactly where the line between 'rape' and 'not rape' is though.

loses debate over scenario she created..
yells troll...

try harder next time ma'am..

maybe one ay you will actually beat me..

I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.

The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.

not that I condone what you are saying. but if you are going down that road. wouldn't you put Bi-Sexuals above gays on that chart since they are attracted to both sexes...?

but why would gays be more likely to be pedo's..?

are you saying little boys are more attractive then men..?

NomadPatriot wrote:

The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.

not that I condone what you are saying. but if you are going down that road. wouldn't you put Bi-Sexuals above gays on that chart since they are attracted to both sexes...?

but why would gays be more likely to be pedo's..?

are you saying little boys are more attractive then men..?

It's because they are trying to infect children with AIDS. Mrswdk wrote about that in the homophobia thread which was then moved to the TrashCan and then deleted along with that forum.

Tom Rubnitz, the drag queen/probable pedophile, when describing why he made queer propaganda for children:

I wanted to make things beautiful, funny and [HIV] positive

http://www.vdb.org/titles/tom-rubnitz-v ... y-desserty

The ram wrote:I've always said that the LGBTQ nonsense is the gateway to legalise paedophilia. Gays are more likely to be paedophiles, when homosexuality was legalized here in Britain an organisation called PIE thought the time was right for it to be legal, it was too early but you know it's coming.

Exploiting a half-truth, at best.

While it is true that among pedophiles, a greater percentage are gay than straight, the converse is not true. There is no special tendency to pedophilia among normal (teleiophilic -- attracted to adult) gays. Both gay teleiophiles and straight teleiophiles show the same (very low) rate of interest in children.

For a balanced discussion:
https://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/blog1.html