So, whatever the crime - a mass murdering, pedophile, rapist - he/she will get a maximum 21 years and be let back into the community? And the warden says; "When released, what sort of person do you want as a neighbour, an angry person, or one that has been rehabilitated?" No, what people want is justice and a punishment that fits the crime. Someone capable of bestial acts, showing no mercy for the victims, does not deserve rehabilitation. This place actually rewards criminality. "Come on in. We provide food, entertainment, training and even pretty guards. After all, your rights are more important than your victims."

Kentucky: Bestiality - legal, gay marriage - illegal.

What. The. Fuck.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Skittles-Bestiality-Is-Funny-When-its-with-a-walrus

Skittles: Bestiality Is Funny! (When it's with a walrus) has been added as a related post - related requested by Fusionaut.

Puppet bestiality, how could I not upvote (reason 9879651 I can't run for public office)

>> ^deathcow:

who's the girl


Go away you perv, this is the bestiality forum.

Actually, I stumbled upon by accident. It took about 15 minutes.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Of course this video obviously is naught about sexuality nor especially bestiality.

MrFisk is clearly just raising a fuss in attempt to make an ill-conceived point. I wonder how much searching it took to find a breast submitted by dag to complain about.

10 hours of empty discussion is enough. *return

Of course this video obviously is naught about sexuality nor especially bestiality.

MrFisk is clearly just raising a fuss in attempt to make an ill-conceived point. I wonder how much searching it took to find a breast submitted by dag to complain about.

10 hours of empty discussion is enough. *return

In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
Does it bother you to see people openly purchasing gallons of cow's milk, flagrantly advertising their penchant for bestiality?

>> ^BoneRemake:

Personally, I take offense to bestiality being posted on videosfit.




aCTUALLY YES. I think milk is for baby cows. I do not drink cow milk, I drink soy and almond "milk "

so that one backfired on you. Cow milk is not healthy.

Does it bother you to see people openly purchasing gallons of cow's milk, flagrantly advertising their penchant for bestiality?

>> ^BoneRemake:

Personally, I take offense to bestiality being posted on videosfit.

Personally, I take offense to bestiality being posted on videosfit.

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory.

I appreciate that you can admit it. After investigating the issue, I decided the leap was too great if it was between that and Gods word. I'm sure that seems funny to you, but have you considered the philosophical implications? If you are already committed to naturalistic materialism, like most atheists, of course you are going to believe there *has* to be a materialist explanation, therefore the circumstantial evidence I cited is going to look a lot more persausive than it actually is. You might even admit that it is not proof of anything, but surely it is pointing in the right direction. You can see the issue a lot more objectively if you are not automatically committed to materialist explanations.

However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof.

What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't have to choose one or the other. Science has nothing to say on the question on whether God exists. It may conflict with the bible on certain issues, but as I wrote above, I didn't change my mind because of what the bible said as true. I directly said I was willing to modify my understanding of biblical truth if scientific theories conflicted with it. The actual reason I changed my mind was because of a lack of evidence.

As far as whether there is evidence for Christianity, there is quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, I think, is fulfilled prophecy. However, God gives revelation to those who are seeking Him. Only God can reveal Himself to you.

They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory.

I don't expect you to believe in God without any proof beyond personal testimony. As I said, God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

It's interesting then that the Israelites completely ignored the science of their time and were inspired to invent hand washing and quarantine procedures which, when followed, kept people from getting sick. It was almost as if an all-knowing God knew about germs and gave His people understanding which helped them avoid infection. These things were "discovered" by science thousands of years later. Had people been following Gods rules of sanitation that entire time, millions of lives would have been saved. Far from primitive, they were ahead of their time by millenia.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

Have you ever read the bible? Do you understand the differences between the Old and New covenants?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

As I said, I believe in science. What I don't believe in is the theory of deep time, or evolution by universal common descent.

>> ^Ferazel

Hopefully, it far less than a couple centuries before the view of creationists are a significant minority viewpoint in our culture as it is holding back our future as Mr. Nye said.

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory. However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof. They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory. Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

>> ^Drax:

Anatomy channel rulez


Yes, it makes anything ok! The future of censorship will be that nothing is censored because everything is acceptable under the appropriate categorization. I love the future of my research into prostitution and bestiality!!! (Animal anatomy!)