Journal BarbaraHudson's Journal: Logged-in user defends bestiality. 2
In the discussion thread under Doom 3DO Source Released, slashdot user ArmoredDragon attacks the submitter by referring to her as an "it" here
I was about to say #gamergate activists would love it too because of it being a female developer, but then I found out that it wasn't technically female.
Well, I (among others) couldn't let that pass
because of it being a female developer, but then I found out that it wasn't technically female.
Are you proud of yourself, referring to someone as an "it?"
He tries to weasel out of it here
"It" in this context is just referring to the this particular case, and not to a person, hence it's gender neutral, as English permits. I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but unlike many languages there's no requirement to specify gender in English, especially in gender neutral objects.
but another user calls him out on his excuse
No, you're wrong. You can use "it" to refer to an object, but not a person. It's just rude.
The first "it" is different as it was used like "it is raining". The repetition of "it" was clearly deliberate, to enable a dig at a trans-gendered person.
There's no point trying to weasel out of it, we get that you don't like the idea of trans-gender.
There's a lot more of that, but it gets stranger
I'm not going to go through the whole war, in 3 separate sub-threads
We don't really know that though. There could be a lot more like him but won't go through with it because *most* medical professionals will refuse to do these kinds of things, not only that but few of them will have familial support. Also (and I'm not equating this) there are probably a sizable number of people that are into bestiality as well, but don't say anything about it. If you do a google search for them, you'll find forums and such dedicated to it, but try asking any of them if they're out to anybody or open about it. Probably 99.99% of them will answer in the negative.
Similar to you however (and again, I need to stress that I'm not equating) they also seem to believe that what they're doing is good, natural, and indeed their "partners" enjoy it too so there's nothing wrong with it. (And I honestly don't know whether or not they enjoy it. If they do, and nobody is getting hurt, then I guess there's nothing wrong with it, and it wouldn't bother me if I knew anybody who did.) Gays and transexuals denounce them however just how they themselves have been denounced in the past.
My reply:
It's not just the LGBTt who denounce bestiality. Where's the informed consent of the animal? Your comparison is ludicrous.
He defends it because of he saw a BBC documentary
There was a BBC documentary about it a while back. I believe the consent (to them) came from the animals showing signs of enjoyment that they normally showed during sex with their own species. That and I think if the larger animals didn't want to participate, they certainly have the power to refuse.
My reply:
So if a muscular 12-year-old girl is lured into having sex with her teacher (someone in a position of authority, same as a human wrt an animal) and she actually enjoys it (in part because she's thinking that by following her teacher she's doing the right thing) that's okay because she "showed signs of enjoyment"? And that she should have run away instead because "she was certainly capable"?
These excuses have been used by paedophiles in court. They don't work because there was effectively no consent. That you don't see a problem with this is disturbing.
"It" (Score:2)
I've corrected Amoured's mistaken notion regarding use of the 3rd person pronouns.
As for the other bit, I think he was probably just trying to yank your chain. Or so I hope.
Re: (Score:2)