Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2009, 02:19:04 PM

Title: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2009, 02:19:04 PM
Good God, how can this not be illegal already? ???

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29813588/
QuoteAlaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Recent cases prompt states to consider outlawing sex with animals

AP
JUNEAU, Alaska - It's a subject that can cause nervous snickering, a little uneasiness and even a few bad jokes.

But many in the southeast Alaska community of Klawock, population 800, weren't laughing last April after a 26-year-old registered sex offender was accused of molesting a local family's pet dog.

The man was spotted by a local woman coaxing the Labrador retriever into the woods near a ball field. There he allegedly tied it to a tree, taped its muzzle shut with duct tape and had sex with it, witnesses told police at the time.

The man had been twice convicted of raping a young boy and more recently had served probation for assault after lunging at a child. While the incident with the dog was reported to the police, Klawock Mayor Don Marvin said nothing happened for two days while fearful parents escorted their children home from school.

"When this incident happened, we had a community that was scared," Marvin said.

Because Alaska has no law against such an attack, Ketchikan District Attorney James Scott eventually charged the man with two counts of criminal mischief, which was later changed to a theft charge.

In requesting a $10,000 bail, Scott told the court that the state was concerned that if a small child had been available and unattended that day, "the small child would have been found taped (and) tied in the woods."

Looking for ways to prosecute
Shocked by that and other similar cases of involving humans having sex with animals, lawmakers in Florida and Alaska are considering bans on bestiality. They are among 15 states where the practice is not explicitly illegal.

Alaska's House Judiciary Committee on Friday heard testimony on a measure that would expand the state's animal cruelty law to include sexual conduct. It would make the practice a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine.

In Florida, a bill that would make sex with animals punishable by up to five years in prison has been unanimously approved by two Senate committees and has two other committee stops before reaching the full chamber.

Florida Sen. Nan Rich, a Democrat, has a thick folder in her office containing news clippings of cases around the state of people having sex with animals. While the act is sickening enough, she says research has shown that people who molest animals are likely to rape or molest people.

"There's quite a number of cases," said Rich, holding up an article. "This one is, unfortunately, a man having sex with his guide dog. This is about a goat's death, a female goat in Walton County that had been sexually assaulted. Unfortunately it's not an isolated incident. We need a mechanism to prosecute."

Cases, bans and protections
The Walton County case in 2006 helped bring the problem to light. There were at least four goat rapes in Mossy Head, including one that resulted in the animal dying. Instead of being charged with a sex act, a suspect was charged with stealing two goats, said Dee Thompson, the director of Panhandle Animal Welfare Society.

Authorities in Tallahassee, Florida, also struggled in 2005 to find charges that would fit against a blind man accused of having sex with his guide dog. The man was initially charged with felony animal cruelty, but prosecutors dropped that charge and recharged him with "breach of the peace."

In Tennessee, bestiality was banned in 2007. Arizona did so in 2006 after a Mesa deputy fire chief was accused of bestial acts with his next-door neighbor's lamb. Washington state also banned sex with animals in 2006, after a man died of a perforated colon from having sex with a horse on a farm in rural King County.

In Alaska, Lynn's measure is backed by the Department of Corrections, the Alaska Farm Bureau, the Humane Society of the United States and the Alaska Peace Officers Association.

Rachel Dzuiba, a veterinarian at the Gastineau Humane Society in Juneau, said it would not only protect animals but also protect the public against a cycle of abuse and violence.

"The act of forcing a living creature to engage in a sexual activity without the ability of consent cannot simply be viewed as a personal choice — no more than forcing a child or an impaired adult would be," Dzuiba told the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing Friday.

Complaints about sexual deviancy
The society's executive director, Chava Lee, said she has received several complaints at the Juneau animal shelter about sexual deviancy against animals.

"In each case that has come to my attention, coercion, abuse, threat of physical harm or terrorizing a human during the practice of a sexual assault on an animal was present," Lee said.

According to the national Humane Society, several studies highlight the link between the sexual assault of animals and sex crimes against humans, including:

    * FBI research on the backgrounds of serial sexual homicide perpetrators that uncovered high rates of sexual assault of animals;
    * A report in the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry that said twenty percent of children who sexually abuse other children also have histories of sexually abusing animals; and
    * A Utah State University study showing 37 percent of sexually violent juvenile offenders have a history of animal sexual assault.

The committee also heard testimony from Klawock Chief of Police Cullen Fowler who said the dog that had been allegedly assaulted did not require veterinary care but appeared to have suffered.

Fowler said the pressure of the taped muzzle cause blood vessels to burst in its eyes and the dog was sensitive to the touch, jumpy and afraid for a long time after the incident.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: viper37 on March 21, 2009, 02:28:00 PM
QuoteThe man was spotted by a local woman coaxing the Labrador retriever into the woods near a ball field. There he allegedly tied it to a tree, taped its muzzle shut with duct tape and had sex with it, witnesses told police at the time.
there, I really thought it was a joke  ???

Quote
The man had been twice convicted of raping a young boy and more recently had served probation for assault after lunging at a child.
what's he doing out of prison?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 02:52:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM

*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.
I'll take your word in what animals prefer in terms of sex, but in the civilized world there has always been a legal discrimination between harming/torturing animals and merely killing them.  While we consider killing people worse than torturing them, we do the reverse for animals, and in the civilized world we recognize that such moral distinctions come as readily to omnivores as to vegetarians.

As your nation spends more time exposed to the modern world, future generations of Poles will get these distinctions, even if it is too late for you.  8)
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Neil on March 21, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.
I'd rather that you be slaughtered and eaten.

At any rate, this is typical of your black-and-white thinking.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on March 21, 2009, 02:56:39 PM
Apart from anything else it wasn't the offender's Labrador; surely an innovative prosecutor could throw the book at him on this basis?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2009, 03:22:18 PM
True, but I've always found the "consent" argument concerning bestiality (which I believe we discussed on the old board) unconvincing, since the whole arena of consent is shut off from animals.

Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 02:52:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM

*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.
I'll take your word in what animals prefer in terms of sex, but in the civilized world there has always been a legal discrimination between harming/torturing animals and merely killing them.  While we consider killing people worse than torturing them, we do the reverse for animals, and in the civilized world we recognize that such moral distinctions come as readily to omnivores as to vegetarians.

As your nation spends more time exposed to the modern world, future generations of Poles will get these distinctions, even if it is too late for you.  8)
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Neil on March 21, 2009, 03:37:10 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2009, 03:22:18 PM
True, but I've always found the "consent" argument concerning bestiality (which I believe we discussed on the old board) unconvincing, since the whole arena of consent is shut off from animals.
Consent is also shut off from infants, but I rather doubt that you'd support going balls deep in a baby, even in theory.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2009, 03:47:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 21, 2009, 03:37:10 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2009, 03:22:18 PM
True, but I've always found the "consent" argument concerning bestiality (which I believe we discussed on the old board) unconvincing, since the whole arena of consent is shut off from animals.
Consent is also shut off from infants, but I rather doubt that you'd support going balls deep in a baby, even in theory.

Well, that's true, but I also don't support grinding up infants to make affordable snack foods or taking infants away from their mothers and treating them as pets, even theoretically.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Neil on March 21, 2009, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2009, 03:47:19 PM
Well, that's true, but I also don't support grinding up infants to make affordable snack foods or taking infants away from their mothers and treating them as pets, even theoretically.
A human infant would make a terrible pet.  As for snacks, I would say that would depend on the country of origin of the infant.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Viking on March 21, 2009, 05:28:05 PM
.... is the New Sweden.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 06:00:33 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 21, 2009, 03:22:18 PM
True, but I've always found the "consent" argument concerning bestiality (which I believe we discussed on the old board) unconvincing, since the whole arena of consent is shut off from animals.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make.  Non-consentual sex is pretty much always banned, while non-consentual killing (of people or animals) is not pretty much always banned (police do it, self-defense, war, etc).

I suspect you have been taking lessons in analogies from Marti.  My advice is: DON'T.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 21, 2009, 06:04:01 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 21, 2009, 02:56:39 PM
Apart from anything else it wasn't the offender's Labrador; surely an innovative prosecutor could throw the book at him on this basis?
The article says they changed the charge to theft, so I think they did.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Tonitrus on March 21, 2009, 07:26:40 PM
Does this mean katmai will be off-limits?  :P
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: PDH on March 21, 2009, 07:47:32 PM
I practice non-consensual grading.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: KRonn on March 21, 2009, 08:19:25 PM
Terrible crime, for the animals to be taking advantage of humans!    :o
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 21, 2009, 09:14:32 PM
They need to pass laws for the protection of pies. I saw a documentary about a dude taking advantage of (raping) one a few years back.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: garbon on March 21, 2009, 09:16:30 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 21, 2009, 08:19:25 PM
Terrible crime, for the animals to be taking advantage of humans!    :o

Well that's the one side I don't get. What happens when the animal is fucking you?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: The Brain on March 21, 2009, 09:32:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 02:52:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM

*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.
I'll take your word in what animals prefer in terms of sex, but in the civilized world there has always been a legal discrimination between harming/torturing animals and merely killing them.  While we consider killing people worse than torturing them, we do the reverse for animals, and in the civilized world we recognize that such moral distinctions come as readily to omnivores as to vegetarians.

As your nation spends more time exposed to the modern world, future generations of Poles will get these distinctions, even if it is too late for you.  8)

In Sweden bestiality is legal and mistreating (let alone torturing) animals is illegal. You = fail.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: garbon on March 21, 2009, 09:37:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2009, 09:32:15 PM
In Sweden bestiality is legal and mistreating (let alone torturing) animals is illegal. You = fail.

We're Americans; our failure makes the world go round.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: katmai on March 22, 2009, 05:36:54 AM
From Today Anchorage Daily News

QuoteIn honor of the just ended great race, smart-mouths in Juneau are calling Bob Lynn's bestiality bill "the Ididadog bill."
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 05:43:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.

Hmmm.  Maybe those slippery slope arguments about Gays and bestiality have something to them.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Syt on March 22, 2009, 06:07:07 AM
What I would be curious about is the stance on having sex with a dead animal (say, a freshly shot deer or the chiken you plan to have for dinner). Illegal? Immoral?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 07:45:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2009, 06:07:07 AM
What I would be curious about is the stance on having sex with a dead animal (say, a freshly shot deer or the chiken you plan to have for dinner). Illegal? Immoral?
Distasteful.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 11:07:31 AM
 :D I laughed until I cried.

Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 11:18:05 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 02:52:15 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM

*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.
I'll take your word in what animals prefer in terms of sex, but in the civilized world there has always been a legal discrimination between harming/torturing animals and merely killing them.  While we consider killing people worse than torturing them, we do the reverse for animals, and in the civilized world we recognize that such moral distinctions come as readily to omnivores as to vegetarians.

As your nation spends more time exposed to the modern world, future generations of Poles will get these distinctions, even if it is too late for you.  8)
There is a question of animal cruelty, of course, but again one would assume that existing anti-animal-cruelty laws already deal with it sufficiently, without a need for a separate penalization of bestiality (with, presumedly, harsher penalties). Not to mention, one would assume that not all cases of bestiality would qualify as animal cruelty - for example someone performing fellatio on a dog would not be causing the animal discomfort and pain.

So, no, you have not showed why sexual acts with animals, by their very nature (i.e irrespective of the actual pain caused to animals or not) deserve penalization, whereas skinning, eating and otherwise using them as things does not.

You = fail.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 11:25:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 05:43:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.

Hmmm.  Maybe those slippery slope arguments about Gays and bestiality have something to them.
Well, I have always held that there is no rational basis for the penalization of bestiality outside of the scope of the animal cruelty laws, or penalization of incest outside of the scope of power relationship abuse laws and anti-pedophilia laws.

I see nothing legally wrong with TheBrain pleasing orally his pet cow or Lord Byron fucking his sister.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 11:18:05 AM
There is a question of animal cruelty, of course, but again one would assume that existing anti-animal-cruelty laws already deal with it sufficiently, without a need for a separate penalization of bestiality (with, presumedly, harsher penalties). Not to mention, one would assume that not all cases of bestiality would qualify as animal cruelty - for example someone performing fellatio on a dog would not be causing the animal discomfort and pain.
Since I didn't make this distinction, I don't have to justify it.  8)

QuoteSo, no, you have not showed why sexual acts with animals, by their very nature (i.e irrespective of the actual pain caused to animals or not) deserve penalization, whereas skinning, eating and otherwise using them as things does not.

You = fail.
Again, you create a failed strawman due to your inabilityy to read what I actually wrote.

What I wrote was a response to your absurd assertions.  I made no assertions myself about the wisdom of laws regarding bestiality, merely about the fact that distinctions between animal cruelty and the slaughter of animals for food can be made in a non-"rather empty" manner by non-vegetarians.

Again, as your nation becomes more exposed to the civilized world, it will become possible for some Poles (though not, perhaps, you) to engage in intellectual discussions without strawmanning and posting juvenile things like "You = fail."

I look forward to the day.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 11:39:05 AM
Again, I have a hard time believing mart is a lawyer.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 11:39:05 AM
Again, I have a hard time believing mart is a lawyer.
:-X
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 22, 2009, 11:56:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 07:45:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2009, 06:07:07 AM
What I would be curious about is the stance on having sex with a dead animal (say, a freshly shot deer or the chiken you plan to have for dinner). Illegal? Immoral?
Distasteful.

that's where spices come in I guess
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 11:39:05 AM
Again, I have a hard time believing mart is a lawyer.
:-X

Has he admitted in the back room that he really isn't one?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 22, 2009, 12:11:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 11:39:05 AM
Again, I have a hard time believing mart is a lawyer.
:-X

Has he admitted in the back room that he really isn't one?

:-X
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 12:19:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 12:10:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 11:39:05 AM
Again, I have a hard time believing mart is a lawyer.
:-X

Has he admitted in the back room that he really isn't one?

All he talks about is gay issues. :surprise!:
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 12:24:44 PM
Not one comment on the lesbian horse stories pic?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: dps on March 22, 2009, 12:25:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 11:25:33 AM
I see nothing legally wrong with TheBrain pleasing orally his pet cow or Lord Byron fucking his sister.

A lawyer should be well aware that whether or not something is legally wrong varies depending on the jurisdiction.  Is it any wonder people question your credentials?   
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: dps on March 22, 2009, 12:25:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 11:25:33 AM
I see nothing legally wrong with TheBrain pleasing orally his pet cow or Lord Byron fucking his sister.

A lawyer should be well aware that whether or not something is legally wrong varies depending on the jurisdiction.  Is it any wonder people question your credentials?
I am not sure it is any longer a matter of a "question."  I think most people here have drawn a conclusion.  The differences between the way Marti thinks and sounds, and the way the undoubted lawyers here think and sound, invites the viewer to draw the conclusion about, not just question, the claim.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: garbon on March 22, 2009, 12:49:39 PM
Are you as tedious in the flesh?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 12:50:41 PM
I always imagine that Marty "sounds" like that muppet that Beaker.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Ed Anger on March 22, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 12:50:41 PM
I always imagine that Marty "sounds" like that muppet that Beaker.

More like Dr. Frankefurter mixed with Sean Hayes.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Strix on March 22, 2009, 01:20:42 PM
Quote from: grumblerI am not sure it is any longer a matter of a "question."  I think most people here have drawn a conclusion.  The differences between the way Marti thinks and sounds, and the way the undoubted lawyers here think and sound, invites the viewer to draw the conclusion about, not just question, the claim.

I would tend to agree with your premise but he is from Poland.  :-\
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 22, 2009, 12:49:39 PM
Are you as tedious in the flesh?
I often wonder that myself. He must be a horrific experience for his pupils if he is anything like that in real life.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 02:16:27 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 11:39:05 AM
Again, I have a hard time believing mart is a lawyer.
Awww, I see only because I consider you a bad parent and has taken cheap shots at your marital life in he past, you are now on an all-consuming crusade against me. :(
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:19:24 PM
I must have missed something. Why do you think he's a bad parent?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 02:21:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:19:24 PM
I must have missed something. Why do you think he's a bad parent?
It was an off-hand joke about him teaching him child to use a gun.

Interestingly enough, I see you have raised no opposition to my characterisation of his marital life, on the other hand. :P
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 22, 2009, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 02:21:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:19:24 PM
I must have missed something. Why do you think he's a bad parent?
It was an off-hand joke about him teaching him child to use a gun.

Interestingly enough, I see you have raised no opposition to my characterisation of his marital life, on the other hand. :P

You didn't characterize his marital life in the earlier post, simply alluded to having done so in the past.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 22, 2009, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 02:21:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:19:24 PM
I must have missed something. Why do you think he's a bad parent?
It was an off-hand joke about him teaching him child to use a gun.

Interestingly enough, I see you have raised no opposition to my characterisation of his marital life, on the other hand. :P

You didn't characterize his marital life in the earlier post, simply alluded to having done so in the past.

Who are you again?
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 22, 2009, 03:01:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Who are you again?

Blackbeard
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 03:07:11 PM
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 22, 2009, 03:01:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Who are you again?

Blackbeard
Ah, I should have guessed by your avatar.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 03:12:26 PM
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 22, 2009, 03:01:50 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Who are you again?

Blackbeard

I keep confusing you with that other guy who I don't remember now.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 03:13:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2009, 01:02:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 12:50:41 PM
I always imagine that Marty "sounds" like that muppet that Beaker.

More like Dr. Frankefurter mixed with Sean Hayes.

Far to much dignity.  Someone squeeking "Me!  Me!  Me!  Me!  Me!"  Fits my idea of Marty perfectly.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 22, 2009, 12:49:39 PM
Are you as tedious in the flesh?
I often wonder that myself. He must be a horrific experience for his pupils if he is anything like that in real life.
Awww, I see only because I consider you a bad lawyer and have reddened your fanny many times in argument in the past, you are now on an all-consuming crusade against me. :(
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 03:18:08 PM
Grumbler?  Have you been touching my fanny as well?  Unlike Marty I don't go in for those backdoor shenanigans.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 22, 2009, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 03:12:26 PM
I keep confusing you with that other guy who I don't remember now.

I make that same mistake.
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: garbon on March 22, 2009, 07:58:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 03:15:37 PM
Awww, I see only because I consider you a bad lawyer and have reddened your fanny many times in argument in the past, you are now on an all-consuming crusade against me. :(

I asked the question and I'm not on any crusade, so tadow!
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: lustindarkness on March 22, 2009, 08:13:24 PM
:lmao: crusades! :lol:
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: garbon on March 22, 2009, 08:23:53 PM
I hear that's when tan people kill white people. :highfive:
Title: Re: Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Post by: Valmy on March 23, 2009, 08:42:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:21:21 PM
*shrug*

Any serious argument against beastiality really becomes rather empty from anyone who is not a vegetarian. I don't know about your average cow, but personally I'd much rather be fucked than slaughtered and eaten.

By that logic we should not be able to outlaw anything about animals that falls short of death.  I guess it should be perfectly legal for me to tie down and torture a cow and cut off its limbs and hear it scream because it is better than actually killing it.  Whoopie for Marty logic!