Creative Commons license icon

'Krypto1701' arrested for animal cruelty

Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (7 votes)

Peter Bower/Krypto1701Peter Bower, known in the furry fandom as Krypto1701, has been charged with animal cruelty after he allegedly had sex with a dog he adopted last month.

In mid-May, the dog warden of Richmond County, Ohio, received an e-mail tip on Bower, including links to bestiality-themed websites. Investigators found photos of Bower with multiple animals, including several dogs and possibly a horse.

When a search warrant was executed on Bower's apartment, investigators seized his three-year-old shepherd-mix dog, as well as his computer. According to records, other items collected included a book about bestiality titled "Dearest Pet", plastic signs that read "Pets Welcome", and a plastic, blow-up sheep.

Investigators have said that they would like to charge Bower with more serious offenses, but Ohio has no laws regarding bestiality. Prompted by this case, Ohio State Representative Jay Goyal plans to introduce legislation that would explicitly outlaw sexual contact with animals.

Comments

Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (7 votes)

Wow, what a doofus.

Your rating: None Average: 1.9 (32 votes)

Not this again. Just because someone has sex with an animal doesn't make it cruelty. It's not cruelty when you breed animals but suddenly if it's a different species it's cruel. And then again they make stupid statements like wanting to make bestiality illegal because they can't effectively charge people. Don't they realise that the reason they need to make those laws is because they can't make a decent case because the entire crime is just one of offending someone's sensibilities. If bestiality were harmful you could prosecute it without needing specific legislature against it.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (11 votes)

The problem with bestiality is..
1)you cannot get legal consent from a non-human. Until they can vocalize approval, you are raping them
and 2) it _can_ cause damage to both involved if you aren't very careful. different species evolve different reproductive organs and methods of reproduction, and their bodies evolve to suit. anything different, such as mating with another species, can damage the bodies of the participants.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (11 votes)

1. It's more than vocalizing approval: a child can vocalize approval, but sex with a child is still rape.

You cannot get legal consent from an animal (or child) because it cannot be proven they even understand the concept of consent.

Your rating: None Average: 4.2 (19 votes)

Not this again. Another furry giving the fandom a bad name with his disgusting behavior--and furries like you jumping in to help him along by defending bestiality.

Animals can't give informed consent. Period. If you're determined to believe otherwise, at least have the common sense to keep it to yourself and quit reinforcing the idea that furries are somehow okay with this. The rest of us have enough stereotypes to deal with as it is.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (10 votes)

I don't know that taking shots at one another is equally productive in having a reasonable dialogue about these issues.

Your rating: None Average: 1.4 (11 votes)

Here some problems I have with that argument. You say animals can't give consent but don't justify that. What is required to be able to give consent? And if something can't give consent is it even relevant? Humans obviously can give consent and the question of our consent is one that matters. A tree can not give consent but the idea of consent in regards to a tree is nonsensical. So what needs to be justified is why an animal's consent is of any importance if it's not ever able to consent.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 2.8 (20 votes)

Right.

Humans consider it okay to conduct experiments on animals, kill them for food and fun, imprison them and keep them as slaves. We wipe out entire populations of animals that are inconveniently living on some resource that we want to exploit.

All of that, and suddenly as soon as sex is involved people get all uptight about animals not giving "consent".

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (13 votes)

There is a degree of hypocrisy involved in outrage over beastiality when viewed in context of what other things humans use animals for.

But chiding outrage over one thing that's morally questionable because you think there's not enough outrage over other morally questionable practices is not very productive either.

Animals do hunt one another for food. It has been going on for a rather long time now. A couple of billion years at last count. Even human behavior in the arena of using animals as food fits within a certain moral framework.

The people who take animals and use them for sexual congress, convincing themselves that the animal wants this and is capable of understanding what it means, and ignoring real damages done to themselves and the animal? That exists in a different realm of perversity. It's not related to human survival or prosperity.

Judging from the residence of the man in question, it's not hard to draw the conclusion that he was another deluded "zoophile" who had built up a fantasy world where non-sentient animals were "lovers" so that he could ejaculate.

What is worse for furries, is that these are the sort of people who attached themselves to the furry subculture because it offered a convenient cover story for their associations. Yet because of how many furries rationalize, they will defend people like this to close ranks with their "furry brothers for the greater good". That, too, is complete delusion. These people are not your "furry brothers". They are predators using furries as fools. Patsies.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (6 votes)

"The people who take animals and use them for sexual congress, convincing themselves that the animal wants this and is capable of understanding what it means, and ignoring real damages done to themselves and the animal? That exists in a different realm of perversity. It's not related to human survival or prosperity."

If living one's life in the way Darwin intended is the line for morality then by that standard gays are also immoral since they don't reproduce, aren't they?

Though I have to agree, these people aren't furries, they use the fandom just as they used the animal. And if this is the same guy who had got caught because of that vet technician furry saw the damage done to the dog then this guy can rot, he REALLY hurt that dog, PHYSICALLY.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

"And if this is the same guy who had got caught because of that vet technician furry saw the damage done to the dog then this guy can rot, he REALLY hurt that dog, PHYSICALLY."

Not the same. The story you are referring to was a hoax.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

It turns out that this is a correct statement as it has come to my discovery today through a follow up journal written by the individual.

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (6 votes)

THANK YOU. This is what I tried to say.

Humans are such hypocrites.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

That's a pretty good argument however, it falls on the idea that ALL humans believe in those things, or don't get "up tight" when those things happen to animals.

There are many human organizations against the mistreatment of animals, whether it be killing them for fun (sometimes even food), conducting experiments on them, and imprisoning them. I promise you if you look hard enough you'll find an organization against it.

So since your argument is based upon the basis that humans in general tend to think that experiments on animals is not cruel, or imprisoning animals is not cruel, you argument stands on shaky grounds because I'm plenty sure there are quite a few humans who feel those are things are.

If these people see those things you listed as cruelty as well as the "consent" thing, there is no hypocrisy, and they are being consistant.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (7 votes)

It's still a relevant argument with regard to the legal status of bestiality because it's an incongruence.

The problem is the ones that object to most of those are generally not the best examples of reasoning at all. (ie PETA) The average furry, as far as I can tell, has no problem with the idea of owning and selling animals (an issue of consent) and are often in favour of forced sterilisation (another issue of consent). There may be some that indeed carry the idea of animal consent all the way (and well done to them for maintaining a consistent view) but I think you'll find most take a view that favours the animal's welfare except in a situation like bestiality.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

"but I think you'll find most take a view that favours the animal's welfare except in a situation like bestiality."

I am confused by that last sentence. Are you saying that a human being having sex with an animal is looking out for their welfare?

If so, no, if the human cared about their welfare they would allow them to have sex with their own species, because statistically that's probably what they want. If you force a gay person to have sex with a straight person you're not looking out for their welfare, if one forces an animal to have sex with them and not the creature of their own species which they would probably rather have, that's not looking out for their welfare.

The thing is when we keep animals as pets, as you kind of point out, it is sort of caging them up and limiting their experiences, how do we know that if a pet shows 'consent' then by humping a human's leg that it is not purely a case of Stockholm syndrome? I'm sure that many pets don't have access to others of their species (some might if the owner has two pets or there are other of the species in the neighborhood), and therefore if they are truly like humans, do their behaviors start to alter from the norm because of their position? Is it truely consent, or was it consent manufactured by the psychological manipulation of being dependant on a human?

If someone kidnaps a human being and the kidnapped human later willingly has sex with them, it is still typically not seen as consensual and as sexual assault (Jaycee Lee Dugard). So if a human takes an animal and keeps them in their backyard for a decade, that when something occurs it's not sexual assault?

If you want your animal to get their rocks off, send them to a breeder. I'm sure they're more equipped to deal with their "welfare". Give them real ability to make choices, not just use power over them to sway their choices.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (8 votes)

I was saying that bestiality is not necessarily harmful to the animal's welfare.

Letting them do what they want is not looking out for their welfare either. Sometimes looking out for an animal's welfare means not letting it do what it wants or is predisposed to do.

It's possible they do get something like Stockholm syndrome but I don't know enough about animal psychology to say how likely that actually is. Just because their behaviour changes does not make it manipulation though, environment does determine part of your psychology. We no doubt grew up differently and those experiences will affect how we lead our lives but that doesn't mean that either of use was psychologically manipulated. In any case such an argument has the major side-effect of challenging every part of looking after an animal. Does your pet love you or is it just Stockholm syndrome? Does your dog like playing fetch or are you just manipulating him to respond that way? And so forth. Would stray animals then be what we should measure our pets against? If you can't get a stray cat to curl up on your lap does that mean cats only curl up on you because you have ingrained a dependence on them?

If you kidnap a human it's a crime anyway, regardless of sexual assault or not.

Breeding isn't giving an animal a choice either. That's forced and, I think, sometimes with one of the participants restrained.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

Truely, it is a slippery slope. Is the pet truely happy with their owners, or are they acting that way as a mere survivalist instinct to behave in symbiosis with the human because if they don't then they will be punished in some way shape or form?

If me saying someone having sex with an animal for their own pleasure is rape and that makes me a hypocrite because killing an animal for food is murder, that makes the one calling me a hypocrite one too because owning a pet is slavery.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

Actually, from what I've observed, with animals sex is not so much a matter of consent as it is compulsion. Take for example a video I saw on YouTube recently of a rabbit going to town on a round white ball. Does the rabbit have any conception of why it feels the need to go to town on any object that has a shape that triggers its genetic programming? Or is it an irresistible natural compulsion?

If this is the case, and a dog sees a bent over human as having that shape that triggers that compulsion, is that consent, or is it abuse of the human's responsibilities as the animal's care taker if he takes advantage of the animal's confusion?

In the other instance, where a human goes to town on the dog without regard to any injuries that could result, the dog is trained to be obedient or be punished. It couldn't consent or refuse if it had the ability to. So, any way you look at it, the human has abused his responsibility as the animal's caretaker.

But you could then say, "But the dog is a slave with no rights. So the human is within his rights to do with his property as he pleases." But the law in certain states has granted the animal a right to not be abused in this manner by a human owner. And this seems a pretty spectacular thing. Imagine slaves having rights.

Unfortunately, no right for the animal to consent is implied in this law. Whether the animal would enjoy having sex with a human is not considered relevant by this law, because the law does not conceive the animal as having the capacity to make such decisions on anything other than pure impulse.

Therefore this is a law to regulate the behavior of humans – not really much of a right for the animals. Just a token really - a concession of the greater evil of animal slavery in order that society might give animal molesters a punishment for lowering its human dignity. And once that is done, the animal is back where it started – no rights at all, except where it pertains to being kept as a slave in a manner that does not offend human dignity.

As for the average Furry who owns pets, I'd say they do not buy animals so much as they adopt them. And they do not own them as much as treating them as a member of the family.

Furry pet owners are no different from most other pet owners. They grant rights and respect to animals above and beyond what the law dictates. And most would probably look on bestiality in the same sense as child molestation. You simply to not take advantage of an innocent being in your care that way. And the guilt is always on the adult human who was supposed to have the good sense to understand the harm such things could cause.

On the other paw, the human is just like the rabbit or the dog. If it feels the need to go to town, there are probably innumerable objects around the house it can go to town on. If not, there are stores that supply such objects. The human never has the need to force its compulsions on an animal, or another human being for that matter. Man is the only animal with unlimited options for getting off, the only animal credited with being able to grasp the concept of responsibility, and therefore the only animal without an excuse.

Humans, be they Furries or not, do not commonly acknowledge the ability of animals to consent, any more than they do small children. Furries tend to be proponents of the idea that animals have intelligence and personality, but most Furries I've read on the subject suggest that intelligence never gets beyond that of a small, dependent child. Thus, no matter how long the animal lives, the human is never morally relieved of the responsibility of caretaker.

Furries do go along with some theoretically barbaric practices, like having their pets surgically altered. But they do so only because they have been convinced this is good for the animal. They don't do such things out of depraved indifference.

Certainly the average Furry pet owner thinks he is treating his animals morally. But of course, there's no law of nature that suggests a Furry has to be at all intelligent. Especially when they living in a world where people endlessly argue on behalf of doing the wrong thing, and they are constantly encouraged to go the stupid route.

If that's what happened to this fellow I feel sorry for him. I hope his time in jail straightens him out from any nonsense he read on the internet to the effect that molesting animals would not be harmful to them, or to himself.

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (6 votes)

This doesn't seem to really reply to the comment I think it's joined to... (though the long gap makes it a bit unclear)

If a dog is acting purely by compulsion there is no issue of consent as there is no reasoning or mind. In such a case it's purely a reflexive response and can't be taken advantage of any more than a tap is taking advantage of water's compulsion to fall. The only issue is whether the animal can feel pain (yes) and then whether the actions taken will cause pain/injury or a decrease in well-being.

If someone uses a dog with no regard to the consequences then that's a problem in and of itself as animals can feel pain and as such should be treated ethically. It could be trained not to refuse (just as people train animals to do all sorts of things which are then just as nefarious) but assuming that was not done an animal is perfectly capable of rejecting a human's advances. Most animals are physically superior to animals, otherwise people wouldn't get dogs for protection.

The law was never made with any thought for the animals but that little digression gets us nowhere. It's also founded on outdated principles of humans being superior to other animals. That's a religious belief and not something that has any scientific grounding.

Animals are not children and can not be treated as such. There are far too many differences both in direct comparison and in their legal status for such a comment to add any value to the discussion.

The idea that bestiality will be harmful is nonsense. There isn't any body of data to support that assumption and there are reason it's unlikely to be true either. Obviously there is the possibility of harm but that doesn't mean the act itself can be considered harmful.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

"The idea that bestiality will be harmful is nonsense. There isn't any body of data to support that assumption and there are reason it's unlikely to be true either. Obviously there is the possibility of harm but that doesn't mean the act itself can be considered harmful."

So "Obviously there is the possibility of harm" but "The idea that bestiality will be harmful is nonsense"?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Yes. Like when you cross the road there is the possibility of harm (tripping on the tar, getting hit by a car, falling down a manhole etc) but crossing the road isn't a harmful action.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

It's more like if I play an LP with a 78 needle. The record may still play properly. But deep down where your eye can't see, the grooves are still screwed up.

Any time you jam something large into something that was made to take something smaller, damage is done. It isn't a matter of looking both ways before proceeding will create some odds of no damage being done. Something large ploughing through something small has a 100% certainty of causing damage.

Maybe you know something about dogs I don't. Maybe their rear openings are made of some super elastic that can stretch to infinity without sustaining damage. If that's the case you should include it in your argument.

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

What you've done, and completely missed, is discovered the obvious difference between what would be abusive and non-abusive bestiality. Obviously if you penetrate something too small you will cause harm but that doesn't apply to everything. Penetrative sex with a cat is impossible due to such size constraints. However a medium to large dog would be able to take a human without harm and animals like horses or cows would barely even notice.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

Assuming what you say is true, there is no randomness to it, as you've been arguing. And, I'd like to see some scientific back up for the notion that a German Shepherd is large enough to take a human. The evidence of my eyes says that's bull.

Also, damage isn't limited to what can happen to the animal. The dangers to humans, as outlined on the page below, are nothing that should be taken as casually as you seem to. Obviously the probability that either the animal or the human will sustain damage is pretty high.

And though you might say that the probability of having an accident on the road is not great enough to stop people from driving, I think most would agree that daring to drive drunk unnecessarily increases your odds of a life altering mishap. In other words, it all boils down to responsibility, or lack thereof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_health

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

What do you mean randomness? I don't remember saying anything about randomness. Just quick googling suggests that a Germna Shepherd's penis is 17.5-18 cm long, which is longer than the 12.9-15 cm of humans. So in terms of length there certainly won't be an issue.

Dangers to humans are irrelevant as there's no doubt about their ability to make a choice. If you choose to do something that will harm you you're free to do so.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

"Dangers to humans are irrelevant."

I think we can end this on that note.

Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (6 votes)

I have argued with you, repeatedly, that "offending someone's sensibilities" is really hurting them.

In other words, you just gave yet another reason why bestiality is a problem; not only is hurting the animal, it is hurting anyone who has to deal with it.

I'm sure this isn't a case the police are going to be talking over with their families, for one thing. It's embarassing for the entire state of Ohio that they actually now are forced to make this a law. It's harmful to the furry fandom's reputation.

These are real consequences. Perhaps if he was offending these sensibilities in the name of some greater good ... but he's not. He's fucking a dog.

Your rating: None Average: 2.3 (3 votes)

Offending someone's sensibilities is not really hurting them. If someone came to Anthrocon to protest that furries were offending their sensibilities do you really think it's appropriate to have furs arrested? What offends people is not a good judge of what should or should not be restricted. If I tell you that you disagreeing with me offends me will you stop doing it? I doubt it (and I sincerely hope not because there's no way for progress down that path).

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

The problem with basing things on "offending someone's sensibilities," is that people's sensibilities are be based on vague images of what they like and dislike, often not based on reason, sometimes just emotional attachment on the status quo, and in the end quite fickle.

While someone shouldn't go out of their way for the sole purpose of bothering others, if we based what should be allowed on how offending of sensibilities and how embarrassed it makes others to see or know about, where do you draw the line? I've seen this exact same argument used against furries or fursuiters (in the cleanest possible sense, not in terms of porn). People have complained that adults shouldn't be running around in costumes, or watching cartoons, and that they are embarrassed to know about it and country XYZ should be embarrassed as a whole to have such people. Most of the time that isn't for some "greater good," and just a form of social fun, so why should any of that be allowed when they could just do something more normal without offending some people?

This is not to argue whether bestiality is right or wrong, just to say in this case, this is a rather bad argument against it.

Your rating: None

Animal cruelty laws are kind of a mixed bag. Many are quite narrow, and it would be hard for such things to be covered just because you can demonstrate some harm. Such laws often have to be updated to explicitly list things that are considered harmful, such as various animal related sports and specific farm procedures, as otherwise it can be difficult or even impossible to prosecute all but the most extreme cases. Some laws also focus on physical harm, which may contribute for the need to list other cases explicitly.

Your rating: None

It IS harmful to the animal you fuckin' psycho. Males who rape animals do a great deal of physical damage to animal, including tearing of the anus and/or vagina and rupturing of internal organs.

Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (6 votes)

Man, that guy looks like a dog molester.

Just sayin'

Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

Thank you!

Anyway, I see this as on par with pedophilia. People that are defending this? WTF? Are you frigging serious? That's five shades of nasty.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (5 votes)

Wow furries. God forbid someone else has a different opinion than you.

Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (8 votes)

I hope this was another case of it was a Furry who turned him in.

Your rating: None

I believe the answer is yes, but they haven't said so in a public venue.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

A small group of furries tracked the guy since early 2010, possibly further back. They collected evidence of the guy's postings on Zetaforum, now defunct, and his FurAffinity account. They collected all necessary information for law enforcement to survey his activities and arrest him.

Your rating: None

Ugh, I hope this doesn't play in the news with AC coming up next weekend :/

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

If they do make the arbitrary connection without mention that furries turned him in, then that is surely defamatory in nature.

After all, if THAT is what furries were about furries wouldn't have turned him in.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

When have they ever needed logic with such connections? It's all about ratings.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

I still consider sexual conduct to a animal as a form of rape because 1) as others pointed out, Animals have no say in what goes on and 2) animals, except for bonobos and dolphins, engage in sex to produce offspring, not for pleasure. Our biology isnt just made to be entangled in that. In anycase this guy should be punished, not just for that, but for dropping that fact out way too much when god knows theres the chance you can be put in the slammer for that, and you do know what they do to animal... "molesters" in prison, don't you?

Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

While a noble cause, internet vigilantism often injures legal cases. I just hope that those who turned this individual in did so responsibly.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Theirs a difference between killing animals MADE for killing and just killing them. Plus the fact that some species are carnivors. That aside, this guy deserves jail if what he did is true. I wouldnt call him a furry as people who commit this have a different catagory. (zoophilia) Judging from his FA page hes clearly not as furry as you think. Almost no anthros and if you pay attention to what he says in his uploads to what the news is saying I feel sorry for his dog. Its wrong. I don't beleive furries would do this. We protect animals, not this. Hope he goes to jail. This is wrong.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Great, more drama!

Your rating: None Average: 1.3 (3 votes)

Psst.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2446834/

While this is a bad thing, it's made worse thanks to *GASP* Insane Kangaroo!

This is NONE of your business. In fact, YOUR making the fandom look bad.

You humans have no problem with slaughtering thousands of animals, abusing them on a near daily basis, and rendering WHOLE species extinct. But the moment it's something sexual, well that's no good and that person is a monster.

Hypocrites. Every single one of you.

Your rating: None

*you're

gj self

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Don't be so quick to judge. I'm not particularly happy about hunting, eating animals, animal genocide and so on. Unfortunately, I'm not in much of a position to do anything about them. So, if I should find myself in a position to stop animal abuse, does that mean I shouldn't bother because I can't do anything about the other things?

I do agree with you on the innocent until proven guilty thing, though. And it is ill advised to judge anyone solely on the word of an insane kangaroo. I've been going on the assumption there was more evidence than that.

Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

"You humans have no problem with slaughtering thousands of animals, abusing them on a near daily basis, and rendering WHOLE species extinct. But the moment it's something sexual, well that's no good and that person is a monster.

Hypocrites. Every single one of you."

1) So because murder exists, rape should be fine until murder no longer exists?

2) If "humans" are held by the standard of being hypocrites is disassociating hypocrisy from yourself not in and of itself hypocrisy.

In layman's terms "Hypocrites. Every single one of you." should be "Hypocrites. Every single one of us." because the former is a hypocrisy.

3) There are A LOT of shouts on his page that are "presuming him guilty before innocent" and it's flattering to think that one person is the sole cause of this though, but it's sadly not the case. There are alot of people who assume guilt before innocence, and it is THE reason we have a court of law that many typically dislike (it's why lawyers and politicians are hated, they are typically what stands in the way of someone getting everything they want) having checks and balances in society is important.

If he is innocent what does it matter what Insane Kangaroo says? IK is not the furry fandom, not is he the entire justice system, if he is innocent that will be proven in the court of law, not on our message boards. Trying to paint someone as "the problem" and "the reason" all these bad things are happening is merely misguided anger.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (4 votes)

1) No, the point he seeemed to be making was if you're against rape you should be against murder at the same time.

3) The problem with lawyers and courts is that they have no interest in the truth. One side tries to convict the other and one tries to defend itself. While that has a possibility of working it's actual aim is to win the argument not to discover the truth of what happened and judge fairly.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

3) This is a part of the evolutionary process in the human animal as recently put forth by scientists in Europe recently: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert....)

This explains not only why we have court systems but also why certain people on the internet get a little to heated about discussions which eventually lead nowhere.

Like the bird singing more impressively then another for a mate, a person's self perception of reason and ability to present it are nothing more then a tool to attempt to improve survivability of the self.

In the end I'd rather it be handled in the courts then via a decision of one person who sees themselves as "all reasonable" because it's impossible to know all in all things. Even if mistakes are made in the justice system, more would be made if all justice was handled by one person with one ideology.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (2 votes)

Fourth time I'm getting that link (or the story at least)... Twice from my feeds, from another person and now you.

The arguing just to win can be converted to arguing for the truth when you start paying attention to evidence. If you ask the right questions and then look for the answers that will work better than just trying to go for a specific point. I think you'll find very few arguments end in agreement but over time you are able to convince people (not necessarily who you're arguing against) to your side. For it to work properly however people need to be open to evidence.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None

I think that statement that "truth has a side" and you can "win people over to it" (implying that one's side is ALWAYS the correct one), kind of scarily shows the truth in that article.

Your rating: None

If you don't believe there is a true version of reality then why would you disagree?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

"You humans?" What, you're not a human? How are you posting here, then? And doesn't that make you a hypocrite too, then?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Such a shame this "Flare" guy is a visitor, he seems to think in the exact same way I think o,o

Well, back on topic:
I wonder if it's true or not. From the pictures I've seen on his FA the dog looks quite happy, but that shouldn't say much.
Bestiality is a dangerous terrain, and I, for myself, am not able to give a definite "yes" or "no" on the subject.

I assume that animals, just like humans, have some interest in sex.
I also assume that animals, just like humans, can get both good and bad experiences with it.
The problem is, it is nearly impossible to know if the animal likes it or not.
The animal may feel it as awesome, or may get a serious trauma by it.

It may, however, be hard for an animal to live without sex. Of course, this is pure speculation, but seeing how pretty much every single human longs for it at some point in his/her live, I believe it is quite possible for an animal to feel this way as well.

Perhaps they want it, perhaps not. It is a hard question that will most likely never get an answer.
So, for now, regarding this question, my opinion stays the following:
"Bestiality could be considered okay if it is done in a safe way, causing the animal no harm, and it is absolutely clear the animal wants this. In case of even the slightest doubt or unclarity, bestiality should be seen as rape and therefore should be punished to the same standard as "normal" rape."

I understand that for most person this opinion will turn into a "bestiality is rape, because you can never be sure" opinion, and I respect and understand that. But for some reason I have the slight feeling inside that, at some point, an owner and pet could built a sufficient relationship and this could actually be a possible and enjoyable experience for both. I, however, don't have factual arguments to support this reasoning and therefore understand and accept any disagreement on this.

@Flare: P.S. I'm a vegetarian and strictly against animal slaughter and testing. My motto: "If a human wants something, they should suffer for it, not an animal that has no interest in such a product."

Your rating: None

Death and suffering are not equivalent, to suffer require pain which requires life.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Death, at very least, causes stress to animals, even if it is "merely" the fear of the injection before they are put to sleep. Stress is suffering as well.

In a lot of slaughterhouses, especially those where chickens are slaughtered (and our idiotic European government keeps promoting chicken meat...), animals get their head cut of, or something similar happens, while they're still alive and awake.

Even if I agree that you can't feel pain when you're death, the fear of dying or the act that causes death does surely hurt.

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

If the fear of dying is what causes suffering then there is nothing anyone can do to stop suffering unless they can stop death, but death is inevitable.

I think the best way to deal with inhumane slaughter houses would be simply more information about where the food comes from being made public and also the methods used by particular slaughter houses use and which products they eventually become. In that way people can make choices on when a particular house has crossed that line, as that line tends to vary from person to person. It won't stop these things from happening, sure, but information would make it a bit better which is better then nothing at all.

Your rating: None

There is still a big difference between causing suffering and not being able to prevent it.

The whole "slaughterhouse" idea is inhumane in the first place. There is no reason to protect the slaughtering of innocent animals for food when we have the technology to live without doing so. "Survival of the fittest" stopped counting long ago, seeing how those animals do not form any kind of danger for us anymore.

We breed animals just to slaughter them later.
We create live, just to cause death.
There is not a single ground to defend these facts, seeing as how we have the technology to prevent it.
And, what makes it even more sickening, is that we throw away a ridiculous percentage of meat away every day as well.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Having the technology to do so is one thing, but it's not quite that simple.

Do we have the logistics to implement that technology on such a large scale as to feed everyone? Remember this is for both developed and undeveloped countries, countries where even given our current system it's hard for them to get food.

Then what happens to all the food that came from animals the moment the system is implimented? What did those animals die for? For their flesh and corpse to rot and go unused? For their death to have truely been for absolutely no use?

And now that I am thinking of this, I actually envy the animal, because they at least die and have a purpose after death, we as humans will just contribute nothing but taking up a six foot cube in the earth, vital resources that could be used for trees, development, and just in general for the living. Even as a corpse it seems we contribute less then the animal.

Your rating: None

You have got a point there, but the fact that there is no perfect way to execute the plan as of yet does not change the fact that the current behavior has to be stopped.

And how can you possible envy being locked up all day long, never seeing daylight and being born to be slaughtered? I'm sorry, but that remark just feels insanely rude. I mean, I personally dislike the fact that I am human, but I wouldn't exactly be happy to be born just so I can be slaughtered before my normal lifespan should end.

Your rating: None

Do we have the logistics to implement that technology on such a large scale as to feed everyone?

It is not really a matter of technology or logistics in most cases. Plenty of groups of people lived on low or no meat diets before modern agriculture. Also, in a lot of cases livestock are fed food that could be used for humans, or food grown from land that could also grow food for humans. In those cases, meat becomes a lot less efficient of a food source, and the question is not "Do we have the resources to feed everyone with less meat?" but "What is being given up and what other costs are there just to have the level of meat they have now?" In other cases where the animals use food sources and land that is not usable by humans, it can get more grey and varies.

Your rating: None

The thing is if we were to suddenly stop killing the animals that we are feeding this food to, those animals would still need to eat the food because they are living.

Your rating: None

Sure, but pretty soon that problem would solve itself.

Your rating: None Average: 1.7 (11 votes)

All of you are so fucking retarded.

Your rating: None Average: 1.4 (9 votes)

What Anon said.

Your rating: None Average: 1.6 (7 votes)

When a dog goes, "Woof", it means "Yes."

When a dog goes, "Woof woof", it means "No."

And when a dog goes, "Woof WOOF woof woof WOOF woof aROOOOO", it means "Let's see how much YOU enjoy getting fucked up the ass in jail, furfag."

Your rating: None Average: 4 (4 votes)

I know this is getting out of hand but the reason killing and animal experiments are performed without legal action taken is because we are dominent on this planet. If furries do exist somewhere in the universe they might be eating their lower class of species as well. Not to mention performing experiments. Also because they would be advanced they would find this act inhumain. If we truely are furries we should look at beastiality the same way, as the killing of animals only in a more "your sick thats like rape" kinda way. I don't sympathize with this guy. He deserves jail just like those who commit animal cruelty.
If their was another race of intelligence (that can construct their own technology like computers, than this would be ok. However he acted toward a lower species and should recieve punishment. No one has any idea what goes on through an actual animals (primitive species) head. Maybe they don't even understand. Defending people like this hurts our reputation and is why the media may act unkind towards us.
Simply put don't support people like this even if other cruelty conserns arn't being acted on. Its still wrong and inhumain.

Your rating: None

The mainstream media acts unkind towards anything that does not fit into their image of "perfectly normal". Even if there is no flaw, they will make one up just so they can look down on us. Muting opinions to "keep the media away from us" is useless, because they say bad things about us anyway, no matter how "good" we behave.

Your rating: None

Just because the media acts like fools doesn't mean we have to, after all, if we're better then them I think we should prove it.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

This is more about limiting the freedom of speech than "acting like fools". Even though bestiality is a highly controversial issue, it is a good thing there are people open enough to discuss about it. Intelligent discussions should not be silenced, they should be encouraged.

We should not let the fear of being judged by the media silence us. We should keep discussing, no matter how controversial the subject may be. Our (general) openness and understanding is what places us above them, and it is something we should surely not lose. If we let them shut us up, how will we ever prove that we are, in fact, better than them?

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

I shouldn't have mentioned media at all. I just disdest people like this and don't support it. I still feel that some of the points i bring up are good ones. But thats MY opinion. Yes. the media does act foolish at takes us as strange. That doesn't mean i have to agree with this. Its not how I feel the fandom should act towards an issue like this. I feel this kind of action towards lower intellagance to be a bad thing!
I think its very wrong is all. Some furries agree others don't. whatever you beleive is YOUR opinion. I just got too involved. You all have your own take on this and I don't feel the need to judge. This is getting very confusing so ill leave it at that. Sry for the bother, I just felt the urge to get involved. No big deal I guess. :/

Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

Another day, another dog****er and worse more defenders of such crap. Unfortunately animal cruelty laws on the book tend to be weak so he'll be out in a short time, and even worse, will have folks on FA overflowing with hugs and awww it's ok and crap.

If http://www.greatdreams.com/eeyore/anmlws.htm is accurate, at the most he'll get six months but more likely 90 days, if not probation.

Crap like this shouldn't be tolerated, and definitely shouldn't be welcomed.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

An old saying I had back in my early college days was: "To be loved by everyone and to be hated by everyone are both impossible feats."

Your rating: None Average: 2.2 (5 votes)

Just going to pop in and give a statement that some of you miss. Firstly I neither condone NOR refute this.. Bestiality is a topic of indifference for me as long as no one is harmed

YOU CANNOT RAPE AN ANIMAL. Do you think animals give consent to eachother? Have you seen dogs? They just smell and hop on... Animal's likely don't know what rape is...minus cats due to barbed penises and female cats hate sex but I strongly disagree with cat to human sex...

But yes you can't rape something that doesn't have consent even when other animals of it's own species are involved.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Biologically speaking most species typically have some form of mating ritual which either the male or female has to perform in order to "court" a mate. In other words earn "consent" by passing a type of test.

Now sometimes a member of the species fails this test and some videos I've seen on the Discovery channel seem to point to that sometimes some animals will completely forgo this process if another mate has been chosen through this process in an attempt to forgo the courting ritual, and thus forgo "consent". Sometimes they fail to succeed in this, sometimes they don't.

So scarily, it seems that "rape" is part of the animal kingdom, and may actually be part of some evolutionary bypass, and if one thinks about it, if this pattern of behavior is in some forms biological, if it is successful that trait of "screw the courtship" is passed on to the next generation.

It's an interesting thought, but just using a domesticated animal(whom have been completely separated from animal society for many years and thus their behavior had probably changed to account for that they hardly have alot of others to choose from so ritual to pick is unnecessary) and establishing that as the pattern of behavior of the entire animal kingdom is a bit of a stretch.

Your rating: None

Well if that's the case then my point is botched.

Personally I really couldn't care either way about bestiality. I mean I know both sides and both have very valid points so I'm on the fence. I am CERTAINLY against animal cruelty so IF it is in fact damaging animals then it is ABSOLUTELY wrong. I just haven't seen concrete enough evidence that this is the case with all animals.

I do think that bestiality should be illegal however because if it is legal I have a feeling we would have some disgusting trades that would go on and terrible things would begin happening to animals en masse. While I have no opinion of bestiality I do agree with this person being prosecuted as if he wasn't it would set an example that anyone can do whatever they want to animals... and we all know what kind of disgusting fetishes are out there.

I know I'm being hypocritical about this and playing both sides but unfortunately that's just kind of my stance.

Also I put a kitty face in my name so that you will know you are not conversing with 10 random people. This is more engaging than I imagined.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

That gets kind of into a complicated overlap of human and animal behaviour. One the one hand you have what the animal is normally exposed to in their environment, but still would have to figure out if that is what they actually want, if possible (i.e. some aspects of living in the wild they might like more, and other aspects of domesticated living they may prefer). On the other hand, should the whole of animal behaviour be used as a model for human behaviour? Just because that is how animals normally do things doesn't necessarily mean it is the most preferred, and humans usually have more options, like choosing not to do such acts or not to kill some animals for food, and still surviving.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

When it comes to things like this, remember that humans aren't just another animal.

I hear people say "We're just animals, too!", and I honestly can't consider that a viable statement. Physical comparisons say we're made of the same stuff. We all have bone, hair, flesh, blood...but if those were the only things required to make the cut, then we'd have a pack of animals marching with signs in protest of the new shopping center that's being put in their forest.

The way we feel, speak, see, and interact with our environment is completely different that that of most animals. We're different, and that's part of life. If reading this comment stirs an emotion inside of you, then you're already experiencing part of the difference.

Face it...we're not just animals anymore. We've moved passed that, for better or for worse.

So, let's not compare ourselves to nature, or what is considered natural, since we pretty well separated ourselves from that before written history even existed. Humans invented morality...so what's "right" and "wrong" isn't determined by things in nature...the expectations dictated by morality come from us.

Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (2 votes)

The fact that we may have some unique traits as a species does not mean humans have elevated themselves above their status as a member of animal kind. And the notion that humans invented something called morality is a farce. We get all up in arms over somebody molesting a dog, and then turn right around to indulge in mass murder of our own species under the justifications of war. We are not moral, nor are we especially intelligent. We're just another animal with some peculiar habits that thinks the fact that it's unique makes it better than the rest, which defeats the concept of morality right there.

Every predatory species, in its own way, believes exactly the same thing as you have stated - that they are the one true higher species and all other species are therefore reduced to slaves and food. We are no better than the rest. If anything we're worse, because our peculiar uniqueness as a species gives us the power to destroy the planet, and we don't mind going that far to prove our illusion of independence from nature.

Man is the most arrogant and idiotic of animals. Perhaps when he can see himself as such and grow beyond that, he may become something more. Until then, don't think so much of yourself. Have some humility, and maybe you'll survive the folly that results from your unjustified beliefs.

Your rating: None

We are not moral, nor are we especially intelligent.

There is still a big difference between being good at being moral and being amoral. Assuming you are coming from an absolute morality view, there is still the issue that people trying to protect animals are not necessarily the same ones for some war. While some may have contradicting issues, plenty of others don't, and often talk of comparison to other animals is about capacity for something, not that the entire species exercises that capacity. While every animal interacts and impacts their environment, it seems to be quite special to think about that impact and foresee problems generations into the future. Whether something actually gets done about that or not is a different matter...

Every predatory species, in its own way, believes exactly the same thing as you have stated

Saying that animals think and believe that seems to be at least as big of an assumption as saying no other animals think similar to humans.

Man is the most arrogant and idiotic of animals.

That sounds like something that distinguishes humans from other animals (even if only by having the ability to make such mistakes).

Not that I am necessarily a fan of the whole humans are special idea, but I still don't see those as strong counterpoints.

Your rating: None

It's not a superiority complex, it's just fact. There's no pride or smugness to the statement.

Right now you're expressing an opinion on a complicated matter on a forum on the internet via computer. QED.

And besides...for "not being any different" than other animals, we sure as hell have a lot of laws dictating the lives of other animals, and the power to enforce them.

And yes, we ARE especially intelligent. If you've got proof that we aren't, I'd love to see it.

Your rating: None

You're own statements are the proof, but you're not intelligent enough to see it. Man is much like a frog. He will sit on a hot stove contemplating his imagined superiority, never noticing the rising temperature until he boils himself to death. Man is a lemming – a suicidally insane species bent on self-destructive obsessions. When man comprehends this and makes a move to change it, perhaps he will be due some respect from the rest of the animal kingdom. Until then, man's habits will continue to defy description without comparison to other animals.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Talk of respect and animals, yet you use two myths that exaggerate the stupidity of animals...

That, and "more intelligent" and "not intelligent enough" are not mutually exclusive. Humans not being able to solve all of their problems isn't evidence of having the same or lower intelligence than then other animals, unless those you are comparing to can solve all of those problems (and it is not like animals have much respect for ecology if they are introduced to some place they didn't evolve for). Otherwise you might as well argue a brain surgeon has the exact same intelligence as a toddler, because both have trouble putting out their house when it catches fire.

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

>Saying humans are the stupidest of animals
>Comparing it to other, "lesser" animals using myths

Take the misanthropy elsewhere, this story's gotten stale and obviously one will not convince the other.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (6 votes)

Everyone on this page defending this man are sick fucks. It is my sincere hope that you all burn in hell, because that's what you deserve.

Your rating: None Average: 1.8 (5 votes)

arent most,not all furs,like him?

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.

About the author

Higgs Raccoonread storiescontact (login required)

a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)