EnterTheVoid Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 For those of you who missed it, Muloghonto saab defines marriages within the same caste as incest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 For those of you who missed it' date=' Muloghonto saab defines marriages within the same caste as incest [/quote'] You can stop misquoting me and derailing this thread. Perhaps that is all the conservative brigade can do instead of making a counter-point to whats presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 I dont kill them, i go to the supermarket and buy animals that were already killed. Regardless, i can say that killing something to eat it, is the most fundamental right of life. I know you will counter with the standard vegeterianism idea of 'it doesnt have to be that way, you can be more compassionate' etc. etc, but fact is, it may be a lesser choice morally, borne out of convinience more than anything, but i am satisfying a necessity of my life by eating animals. Animal sex without consent from the animal is tantamount to rape. Rape has never been seen acceptable because of a 'necessity' of the individual, so you cannot make that comparison. And if you find any legal precedent where a rapist is enabled by the justice system because it is a 'necessity and a major convinience' for them, then perhaps your argument would have some merit. Till then, beastality by default is wrong because beastality by default is rape. So muloghonto baba... cannibalism should be a legally accepted practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 So muloghonto baba... cannibalism should be a legally accepted practice. How can cannibalism be justified, when the victim of cannibalism has the exact same legal status as the benefitor of it ? Also, cannibalism has been accepted in extreme survival circumstances. But it cannot be supported as a daily happening because of the abovementioned legal status of the victim as well as the fact that consuming animal meat too closely related to you ( in terms of protien structure) leads to prion disease. Ie, basically, mad cow disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakat Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 What **** arguments! Comparing people's rights to choose their partners with bestiality and cannibalism. :facepalm: Looks like a few posters are worried that legalizing gay sex would mean hijras will drag them behind jhadis and do unmentionable acts with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 How can cannibalism be justified, when the victim of cannibalism has the exact same legal status as the benefitor of it ? Also, cannibalism has been accepted in extreme survival circumstances. But it cannot be supported as a daily happening because of the abovementioned legal status of the victim as well as the fact that consuming animal meat too closely related to you ( in terms of protien structure) leads to prion disease. Ie, basically, mad cow disease. I thought so.. because you told that you don't need consent to kill something if you are going to eat that thing. You need consent only if you going to have other kind of pleasures. I was just trying to seek pearls of wisdom from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rageaddict Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Sex with the same sex, Sex with animals, Sex with a corpse, Sex with Children, Eating dead bodies are more or less similar perversions of a Sick mind. An adult may also develop a taste for his/her own excreta but that is not going to convince everyone else to consider it as a Normal Behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 I thought so.. because you told that you don't need consent to kill something if you are going to eat that thing. You need consent only if you going to have other kind of pleasures. I was just trying to seek pearls of wisdom from you. Is this meaningful debate from you ?!? Really ? It goes without saying that the 'something' i referred to in the previous line is inapplicable to human-human consumptions. That much should be obvious. Religiously, ethically as well as legally, there is a huge distinction between eating your own species and eating everything else. we have the right to kill animals to eat them. We dont have the right to rape them. That much too, should be obvious from any legal, philosophical or theological sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Sex with the same sex, Sex with animals, Sex with a corpse, Sex with Children, Eating dead bodies are more or less similar perversions of a Sick mind. An adult may also develop a taste for his/her own excreta but that is not going to convince everyone else to consider it as a Normal Behaviour. There is no such thing as normal behaviour. 2000 years ago, in Greece, it was considered normal for old men to have young boy lovers. It was commonplace too. 100 years ago, it was normal for a bunch of 13-14 year olds to get married in our country. Gandhi himself was married at that age. Today, in the western world, it is normal for people to lose their virginity by 15-16 years of age. The thing i am trying to point out is that human society is not a hormone or chemical driven construct, like certain animal societies are. We are, as a society, driven by abstract concepts and adherence to them. What we think is normal, is normal. What we think is not normal, is abnormal. THose definitions are not permanent through the times, infact they change massively. So saying what is normal and what is not normal, does not make any practice legitimate or illegitimate in and of itself. Supporting reasons must be given and weighed. Heck, it does not even matter if you consider homosexuality as normal. What matters, is they have every right to showcase their sexual orientation- within limits of social decency ofcourse- as much as heterosexual people do, as well as they deserve all the rights that heterosexual people do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Is this meaningful debate from you ?!? Really ? It goes without saying that the 'something' i referred to in the previous line is inapplicable to human-human consumptions. That much should be obvious. Religiously, ethically as well as legally, there is a huge distinction between eating your own species and eating everything else. we have the right to kill animals to eat them. We dont have the right to rape them. That much too, should be obvious from any legal, philosophical or theological sense. :hysterical::hysterical: do you really think anyone can afford to be meaningful with you? :giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 :hysterical::hysterical: do you really think anyone can afford to be meaningful with you? :giggle: Except for barbs, you don't have anything sensible to say. I guess that is so, since you want to challenge the most basic right of omnivorous/carnivorous species the right to kill to eat and equate it with the right to rape. I suppose to you, the necessity to eat and the necessity to sex are of same value- which is ridiculous. You can laugh all you want, but hiding behind meaningless words will only demonstrate your lack of a grounded position. As i thought, you are just wasting time instead of debating the actual points. Which really, is the hallmark of the conservsative brigade of unthinking followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Except for barbs' date=' you don't have anything sensible to say. I guess that is so, [b']since you want to challenge the most basic right of omnivorous/carnivorous species the right to kill to eat and equate it with the right to rape. I suppose to you, the necessity to eat and the necessity to sex are of same value- which is ridiculous. You can laugh all you want, but hiding behind meaningless words will only demonstrate your lack of a grounded position. As i thought, you are just wasting time instead of debating the actual points. Which really, is the hallmark of the conservsative brigade of unthinking followers. Seriously Man.. :hysterical: so now human beings are into defining legal rights of other species as well. Very soon we are going to read a dog has been arrested for biting or attacking other dog. I understand by your theories a dog has a right to kill say a rabbit to eat, but can't attack another dog as that dog would enjoy same legal status. Hat's off to your perseverance man..:hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Seriously Man.. :hysterical: so now human beings are into defining legal rights of other species as well. Now ? Animal rights and human-animal interactions have been a matter of legal jurisdiction for well over a hundred years. Very soon we are going to read a dog has been arrested for biting or attacking other dog. I understand by your theories a dog has a right to kill say a rabbit to eat, but can't attack another dog as that dog would enjoy same legal status. Hat's off to your perseverance man..:hatsoff: In western countries, if you have a dog that goes around biting or trying to eat other dogs is legally entitled to be put down, whatever the owner of the dog may think. Regardless, a diabolic twist of my words. Apparently the right to kill and eat is equated to cannibalism, the right to kill for food and right to have sex with an animal are one and equal. All you are doing, is beating around the bush and demonstrating a complete lack of critical thinking from your part. How does that arise from the simple point that a) consenting adults have the right to choose their esxual partners from either (or no) gender and b) ancient hinduism was accepting of gay and various other sexual behaviours, is beyond me. Except ofcourse, attempts to derail the conversation because you can neither accept it, nor refute it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 What **** arguments! Comparing people's rights to choose their partners with bestiality and cannibalism. :facepalm: Looks like a few posters are worried that legalizing gay sex would mean hijras will drag them behind jhadis and do unmentionable acts with them. Seriously! Soviet Union is no more but the "Whataboutism" agents still exist. Also, for folks who say Khajurao is the only temple depicting erotica in India - couldn't be more false. Markandeshwar Temple, MP Padwali Temple, MP Sun Temple, Orissa Osian, Rajasthan :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 This thread is an education in drawing dumb analogies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 : : If you cannot find a reasonable justification on why sex outside of your own species is fundamentally wrong, then the issue of beastality has only one major hurdle left: of rape. Because if consent cannot be obtained, it is, by default, rape. So as of now, any and all beastality is wrong because it is rape. In the future, if someone invents a gadget to communicate with horses and the horse says 'i want to have sex with you', then, with your consent, it is not rape anymore, thus removing the major obstacle towards beastality. But till ( or if) that happens, it is by default wrong because it is, by default, rape. That is not correct my friend. I have seen beastality( women having sex with dogs and horses) videos. Dogs and horses in the videos are seemingly enjoying it very much . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaku Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 :bird: @thread discussions Seriously stupid SC !! Tumko kya problem hai kon kisse pyaar kareyy???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 You can stop misquoting me and derailing this thread. Perhaps that is all the conservative brigade can do instead of making a counter-point to whats presented. Straight from the horse's mouth. Your words buddy, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Straight from the horse's mouth. Your words buddy, not mine. Err no, you are twisting my words and misquoting me. There were more qualifiers to my statement. As i said, stop misquoting me and derailing this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 That is not correct my friend. I have seen beastality( women having sex with dogs and horses) videos. Dogs and horses in the videos are seemingly enjoying it very much . Umm...ok, well i dont know much about beastality. But enjoyment of sex does not make it legal, its consent that makes it legal. There are plenty of cases where its considered rape because permission was not asked/denied but the victim still got sexual 'enjoyment'/stimulation out of it. A lot of sexual responses are purely physical responses that may happen despite your mind saying 'no'. For eg, if you raped a girl- tied her down and did the 'normal thing' vigorously, she will get wet at some point. Does not mean you are not raping her, because she still said no but physical responses happen like response to stimuli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts