Gangrape of pregnant goat by 8 Muslim men in Mewat, Haryana...Goat dead...

[asterix]

[coffee_rules]

This is a #MooToo moment.

 

Sorry to trivialize the movement!

Edited August 5, 2018 by coffee_rules

[Muloghonto]

8 hours ago, Singh bling said:

Just watch national geographic , in most animals when female is not in mood she give clear indication and bulls , males just move on

That is not proof of consent. That is assumption of consent. You cannot prove consent with any being you cannot communicate with. 

8 hours ago, Singh bling said:

Then who gives right to dairy farmer to put tube in vagina of cattle .if a man put an object in woman's vagina then its rape if the same right is extenged to animals then all dairy cattles are raped

Err no. A man CAN put things in a woman's vagina without her consent and still be fine - provided it is a medical procedure and she is not concious. Same applies here. A farmer fertilizing a cow is not deriving sexual pleasure, neither is it a sexual act. 

8 hours ago, Singh bling said:

They don't even have right on their life or freedom , a human can legally cut their throat next day.

Sure. It still doesn't mean its okay to rape an animal. 

8 hours ago, Singh bling said:

As i said why consent is just limited to male penis.Do they give consent to touch their udders , do they give consent to artificially put tubes in their vagina.these are all crimes if you commit it against women

No. If you are a woman and i am a doctor, you come into my ER ward with your face bashed in by a loser and you are in coma, with a dildo stuck in your vag, i dont need your permission to go into your vag and repair the damage. Why ? because it  is a medical procedure. Same applies for fertilizing cattle.

This is why we have laws against beastiality but not laws against animal farming. Should be fairly straightforward.

 

And you keep dodging my question - tell us why you are okay with the idea that if there is no consent, its still okay to have sex.

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

That is not proof of consent. That is assumption of consent. You cannot prove consent with any being you cannot communicate with. 

Are you saying all female animals are raped in wild ?

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Err no. A man CAN put things in a woman's vagina without her consent and still be fine - provided it is a medical procedure and she is not concious. Same applies here. A farmer fertilizing a cow is not deriving sexual pleasure, neither is it a sexual act.

What rubbish is this if there is accident then it is an extreme situation and still it do not give right to that doctor to impregnate her without  consent.

A farmer is not doctor .she forcibly tie cattle and penetrate her for his profit.

The dildo is not stuck in cow's vagina

Let me put it another way , a wealthy childless couple goes to doctor for child the take the sperm out of the man but did not find any willing fertile woman so she forcibly impregnate one with the man's sperm , will that doctor not be charged with rape .

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure. It still doesn't mean its okay to rape an animal. 

Quote

Which is bigger crime for humans killing or rape?

 

 

As far you question is concerned I don't consider human laws applicable to animals , rape is crime for humans not animals.It has different definitions in different countries 

When already we did and still doing lots of cruelities to animals for taste , nutrition , clothes transportation and none of human laws are applicable then why pick one single law ?

 

If A has right  to half slit throat and let animal die painfully for his religion, B has right 

to castrate a male cattle and force him to pull load while he constantly hit sticks in his anus while C brings a cattle a put his penis in her vagina while she hardly feels any pain then I don't understand why beat chest over C's action 

 

As far laws against beastality is concerned , there is also law against homosexuality in India and various nations Which liberals are proud to break

They are more to protect morality rather than protect animals in most nations

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

And you keep dodging my question - tell us why you are okay with the idea that if there is no consent, its still okay to have sex.

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Singh bling

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Singh bling said:

Are you saying all female animals are raped in wild ?

I dont know, its a possibility. We simply do not have objective data about consent as we, species homo sapiens, knows it. 

9 hours ago, Singh bling said:

What rubbish is this if there is accident then it is an extreme situation and still it do not give right to that doctor to impregnate her without  consent.

A farmer is not doctor .she forcibly tie cattle and penetrate her for his profit.

The dildo is not stuck in cow's vagina

Let me put it another way , a wealthy childless couple goes to doctor for child the take the sperm out of the man but did not find any willing fertile woman so she forcibly impregnate one with the man's sperm , will that doctor not be charged with rape .

Why do you keep dodging my question. Its a simple question, so answer it:

Is it okay for one of us to have sex without consent ? Simple yes/no please.

 

9 hours ago, Singh bling said:

Which is bigger crime for humans killing or rape?

 

 

As far you question is concerned I don't consider human laws applicable to animals , rape is crime for humans not animals.It has different definitions in different countries 

What you consider or don't consider is irrelevant, as we have proof that our laws ARE applied to animals, in things like sex, torture etc. Animals having LESS rights than humans does not mean human laws are not being applied to animals. 

9 hours ago, Singh bling said:

When already we did and still doing lots of cruelities to animals for taste , nutrition , clothes transportation and none of human laws are applicable then why pick one single law ?

Because it is about personal conduct of a member of species homo sapiens, SOLELY FOR ITS OWN PLEASURE (SEX WITH AN ANIMAL). 

9 hours ago, Singh bling said:

If A has right  to half slit throat and let animal die painfully for his religion, B has right 

to castrate a male cattle and force him to pull load while he constantly hit sticks in his anus while C brings a cattle a put his penis in her vagina while she hardly feels any pain then I don't understand why beat chest over C's action 

Because C is responsible for his/her own actions solely for the purpose of pleasure, that is why. 

9 hours ago, Singh bling said:

As far laws against beastality is concerned , there is also law against homosexuality in India and various nations Which liberals are proud to break

They are more to protect morality rather than protect animals in most nations

Not in all cases. As i said, in Canada, the law is explicitly there to protect animals. 

[Singh bling]

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Why do you keep dodging my question. Its a simple question, so answer it:

Is it okay for one of us to have sex without consent ? Simple yes/no please.

For me sex without consent with other humans is wrong.For animals I don't care as long the animal is not physically hurt.

 

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

What you consider or don't consider is irrelevant, as we have proof that our laws ARE applied to animals, in things like sex, torture etc. Animals having LESS rights than humans does not mean human laws are not being applied to animals. 

The countries that are beating chest over animal rights have over 100 kg per capita consumption of meat , they invent new ways of factory farming which are very cruel to animals

 

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Because C is responsible for his/her own actions solely for the purpose of pleasure, that is why.

This is different argument. Zoo's are for pleasure so is horse racing , bullock cart racing , bull fighting etc.and BTW some animals are raised just for their fur and we all know how cruelly they are raised.many times humans also wear fur for pleasure.Also not to forget many countries including yours allow hunting and that is for pleasure too.

 

Now can you please tell when you don't have problem with slaughter , halal , factory farming , forcible impregnation , castration , killing animals for their fur, making animals beast of burden , zoos , horse racing etc etc then why you have problem if a human puts his penis in vagina or anus of animal and it is not even hurt ?

[Deleted_User_1]

I give up on the sheer  extent of sexual pervertion in India. You have to massively repressed sexually and an extreme deviant to engage in acts like this. However, I think if it was a girl or a woman on the receiving end instead of a goat, then would have gone for that. 

[Muloghonto]

11 hours ago, Singh bling said:

For me sex without consent with other humans is wrong.For animals I don't care as long the animal is not physically hurt.

If the animal could communicate to you and didnt want to have sex with you, is it still wrong to have sex with said animal ?

11 hours ago, Singh bling said:

The countries that are beating chest over animal rights have over 100 kg per capita consumption of meat , they invent new ways of factory farming which are very cruel to animals

Irrelevant. Comparing food to sexual treatment is being confused. One is a food item- objective necessity of a species. Other is sex without procreation: definition of something unnecessary. 

11 hours ago, Singh bling said:

This is different argument. Zoo's are for pleasure so is horse racing , bullock cart racing , bull fighting etc.and BTW some animals are raised just for their fur and we all know how cruelly they are raised.many times humans also wear fur for pleasure.Also not to forget many countries including yours allow hunting and that is for pleasure too.

Sure. Furs are not just for pleasure, it is for the cold as well. Same with hunting- its for eating or selling the fur/skin (or collecting it). 
Sexual intercourse is none of these criterias. 

11 hours ago, Singh bling said:

 

Now can you please tell when you don't have problem with slaughter , halal , factory farming , forcible impregnation , castration , killing animals for their fur, making animals beast of burden , zoos , horse racing etc etc then why you have problem if a human puts his penis in vagina or anus of animal and it is not even hurt ?

You have no way of knowing if its hurt or not. It cannot communicate with you. 

My problem is, for us, a species that relies on consent for procreation as a fundamental pillar of moraility, our members cannot be justified with having sex with anything capable of consent but without the said consent. 
Its just that simple. 

I hope you dont bring up your kids with the idea that consent to sex does not matter if its not a human. 

[rkt.india]

11 hours ago, dandaroy said:

I give up on the sheer  extent of sexual pervertion in India. You have to massively repressed sexually and an extreme deviant to engage in acts like this. However, I think if it was a girl or a woman on the receiving end instead of a goat, then would have gone for that. 

does it not happen in white countries? Google can help you.