Pumpkin Eater Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Canada Supreme Court rules that forms of beastiality are legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 It's a mental illness. We have it in our WH, our state dept, higgardly, it's a serius mess but canada is going into the toilet. Liberals never quit. It isn't the goal to just get gay marriage, tranpervs whatever. It's upended who we are, turning our country unpsde down, inside out and bass-ackwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 The apocalypse is coming. No doubt about it. I'm serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 http://www.christianpost.com/news/canada-legalizes-most-sex-acts-with-animals-165053/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 So if no one gets penetrated, animal included, no harm no foul in Canada? Kid diddlers will rejoice in the land of maple syrup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 I do wonder how it works without penetration... Maybe smear tuna fish on your dick and call the cat over? Then again like I said before and got a big raft of shit for as soon as one taboo Falls somebody wants to take on the next one. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 liberals are enough to make normal, decent, healthy people puke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 I do wonder how it works without penetration... Maybe smear tuna fish on your dick and call the cat over? Then again like I said before and got a big raft of shit for as soon as one taboo Falls somebody wants to take on the next one. WSS Have you seen a cat's tongue? Yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 First off, the animal rights activists (who are liberals btw) wont allow this ever. Infact they're protesting in columbus now because ohio is like the only state without beastiality laws. Second......its fucking canada. Srsly, canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Only canadians would say well legislature technically you didnt allow the peanut butter trick sooooo have at it boys!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 Justin Trudeau is the ultimate cuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 "How aboot we think about the dogs, aye? I mean they like peanut butter. Do we want to deprive them of Jiff just because it is on a pair of balls?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Justin Trudeau is the ultimate cuck Do you take a shot of beam every time you get to use that word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Do you take a shot of beam every time you get to use that word? I like gin, I'm chugging on some now before the cavs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Well now, this certainly does open up some rather interesting advertising avenues for Jif, Skippy and Peter Pan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Post Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Well now, this certainly does open up some rather interesting advertising avenues for Jif, Skippy and Peter Pan Choosy mothers choose Jeff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Post Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I like gin, I'm chugging on some now before the cavsLaid back..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 http://www.snopes.com/canada-legalizes-beastiality/ Claim: Canada legalized oral sex with animals. mostly false WHAT'S TRUE: Canada's Supreme Court ruled that the current definition of bestiality only included penetrative acts. WHAT'S FALSE: Canada passed a new law legalizing oral sex with animals. Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2016]: "Canada's courts supposedly legalized sex acts between humans and animals? I assume it is not true, but haven't seen anything to dispute the article that my friend posted on FB." Origin: On 9 June 2016, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that the country's current bestiality laws only banned sexual acts that involved penetration: Supreme Court judges ruled 6-1 in favor of a man from British Columbia in western Canada convicted for sexual assault and bestiality after he involved the family dog in the abuse of his two stepdaughters. The man, known only by the initials "D.L.W." to protect his stepdaughters' identity, successfully appealed his bestiality conviction in a provincial court, arguing that according to the law, the offense of bestiality requires penetration, which his actions did not involve. Justice Thomas Cromwell, writing for all concurring judges, said in the decision that penetration has always been required to secure bestiality convictions and courts do not have the power to rule otherwise. Shortly after the ruling was issued, several web sites reported that Canada had legalized oral sex with animals. The country, however, did not issue any new laws regarding bestiality, nor did they change any existing laws. The Supreme Court based its ruling on the legal definition of bestiality already in its criminal code: Applying the principles that guide statutory interpretation leads to the conclusion in this case that the term bestiality has a well‑established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal. Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality. Parliament adopted that term without adding a definition of it and the legislative history and evolution of the relevant provisions show no intent to depart from the well‑understood legal meaning of the term. Moreover, the courts should not, by development of the common law, broaden the scope of liability for the offence of bestiality. Any expansion of criminal liability for this offence is within Parliament’s exclusive domain. [...] In this case, the term bestiality did have a clear legal meaning when Parliament used that term without further definition in the English version of the 1955 Criminal Code . Bestiality meant buggery with an animal and required penetration. It was clear that to secure a conviction, the prosecution had to prove that penetration of an animal, or, in the case of women, penetration by an animal, had occurred. This was the state of the law when the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 was enacted in England. The offence in substantially the same form was carried over into the first English version of the Canadian Criminal Code in 1892 and continued to be in force until the offence called bestiality was introduced into the English version of the Code in the 1955 revisions. However, this bill may not stand for much longer. Legislation that would redefine bestiality to include all inter-species sexual activity was introduced to Parliament, but as of June 2016, remains in its early stages. Camille Labchuk, executive director of the Animal Justice group, urged lawmakers to quickly pass the bill: "People who sexually abuse animals are sometimes linked to sexually abusing children as well, as the accused did in this case," she said. "That's a really good reason parliament needs to act." Whether or not the bill passes, bestiality has not been legalized in Canada, and it's extremely unlikely that it will ever be. liberals are enough to make normal, decent, healthy people puke. So, from the article, it seems like Canada's beastiality, as it currently is, has been on the books since the 1950's - 60+ years. Tell me, how many "normal, decent, healthy" conservatives, when they were the Canadian Prime Ministers and controlled the majority of their Parliment, did absolutely nothing to correct this law either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Snopes, “Liberal Bias,” and Trusting the Internet blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/04/27/snopes-li... Snopes, “Liberal Bias,” and Trusting the Internet. by Eric Hall. A few weeks ago, ... Snopes’Liberal Bias. One claim made both on my post a few weeks ago, ... SNOPES.COM IS Liberal Biased - Facebook www.facebook.com/pages/SNOPESCOM-IS-Libera... SNOPES.COM IS Liberal Biased. 119 likes · 2 talking about this. FYI please don't useSnopes.com anymore for fact checking Is snopes.com biased? www.snopes.com › Fact Check › Notes I will never trust your fact-checking site in the future. Your blatant liberal bias is and your disingenuous answers are a travesty to anyone looking for information ... Liberals love snopes - snopes ARE liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 ... so are you supporting my snopes link or no? Because I get the feeling that you didn't actually read the links that you posted... Snopes, Liberal Bias, and Trusting the Internet blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/04/27/snopes-li... Snopes, Liberal Bias, and Trusting the Internet. by Eric Hall. A few weeks ago, ... SnopesLiberal Bias. One claim made both on my post a few weeks ago, ... http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/04/27/snopes-liberal-bias-and-trusting-the-internet/ A few weeks ago, a post circulated on Facebook with the headline Snopes got snoped! It originated with a group called Uncle Sams Misguided Children. The group has a noticeable presence on Facebook, with over 400,000 likes and many, many shares of each of their posts. The page is clearly a right-wing group, with posts varying from standard conservative issues to those downright racially or sexually bigoted. I wont address those posts further, but I want to look at the issue of Snopes trustworthiness directly, along with the larger issue of reliable sources. Snopes got Snoped? Did this story reveal something new about Snopes that I missed? I always look into claims about sources I trust, as I want to make sure they can remain on my list, or if I should reevaluate them. I looked into the story a bit further. A website known as Worldtruth.tv is the source of the original story. Here is the reason it says Snopes is not a trustworthy source: Only recently? Snopes has an About Snopes section on their website which clearly states who the founders are and how they do their investigations. Why this took people several years to find this out is baffling, when simply clicking on the about page would accomplish this in 5 seconds (plus reading time of course). For several years people have tried to find out who exactly was behind the website Snopes.com. Only recently did they get to the bottom of it. Are you ready for this? It is run by a husband and wife team thats right, no big office of investigators scouring public records in Washington, no researchers studying historical stacks in libraries, no team of lawyers reaching a consensus on current caselaw. No, Snopes.com is just a mom-and-pop operation that was started by two people who have absolutely no formal background or experience in investigative research. The story continues, giving only one example of a supposed inaccuracy regarding the story of an insurance agent posting political signs on his business sign. WorldTruth claims Snopes condemned this on their website. The only condemnation I can find in the article itself is Ms. Mikkelson referring to the sayings on the sign as a zinger. It turns out, the entire story of Snopes misrepresenting the story came from an e-mail circulated by another right-wing website. That website has since taken down any reference to it on their site. The claim is that Snopes never contacted the company this agent represented. Turns out, they did. FactCheck.org also contacted the company, and the company verified both their request to the agent, as well as their contact with Snopes. WorldTruth reprinted a rumor that has long since been proven false. A larger look at the site called WorldTruth.tv reveals something very hilarious. The claim that Snopes shouldnt be trusted because it is only run by 2 people (the Mikkelsons) comes from a website run by 1 person who only identifies himself as Eddie. From WorldTruth.tvs About Us page: I have to rub my forehead every time I read it. The website making a claim Snopes cannot be accurate because they do not have a large team is supposed to be trustworthy when being run by one person. If someone can make sense of that logic, please let me know! My name is Eddie and WorldTruth.TV is my way to share all the knowledge and information that I have acquired and been blessed with in the last 32 years of my journey on this planet. WorldTruth.TV is a website dedicated to educating and informing people on regular basis with well-researched articles on powerful and concealed information. Ive spent the last 32 years researching Theosophy, Freemasonry, Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, the Bavarian Illuminati and Western Occultism. I remember when I first learned about the Truth and it wasnt pretty. I remember learning about how the mass media lies to our faces consistently. About how the educational system only teaches the youth what they need to become obedient workers. Apparently, the entire site is filled with re-posted articles from other fringe websites promoting conspiracies, pseudoscience, etc. For example, another headline from this site is one called The Vaccine Hoax Is Over. The article in its entirety is a copy from another page called the Food Freedom Group. So Eddie did quite the investigation on vaccines (yes, that is sarcasm)! The original article goes on to prove vaccines are harmful (in this case the flu vaccine) by citing articles from Mercola and Natural News. I tried clicking around to various links to the original studies that show this claim to be valid, but it mostly leads in a circle to these websites. The external links I could find were to the CDC. One link was to the VAERS system, but to all reports of incidents with the HPV vaccine which of course has nothing to do with the flu vaccine. The other link was to statements by the CDC which state the flu vaccine is safe, which the article claims is evidence of a cover-up. Looking at Eddies research nothing about WorldTruth is trustworthy. I guess my trust in Snopes as a quick resource, or at least a good starting point, is still secure. Snopes Liberal Bias One claim made both on my post a few weeks ago, as well as by many websites of a conservative bent, is that Snopes has a liberal bias. I thought I was clear in my post that it would appear to be so, simply because the current president is a Democrat, but for the sake of those that claim a liberal bias, I grabbed a few articles regarding our last president, George W. Bush, in order to show that what they report is based on what is being passed around, not on the politics. President Bushs Low IQ The premise here was that out of all the presidents since FDR, George W. Bush had the lowest. It was a study supposedly done by a think tank that turned out didnt exist. Snopes even found two instances of newspapers publishing the information. It had a very obvious liberal bias, as the top 3 were listed as democrats with genius level IQs, while the bottom 5 were republicans. Snopes referred to the low IQs assigned to the two Bush presidents as insultingly low just based on their ability to write and speak (while acknowledging the difficulty in assigning IQ based just on those items). I would think a site with a liberal bias would choose not to report this at all, or at least avoid commentary in favor of two conservative presidents. President Bush refused to sell his home to blacks When George Bush was elected governor in Texas, he bought a house that had a covenant on it from when it was built in 1939 that stated only whites could dwell in the house. This was not an uncommon practice at that time, and often these covenants went unnoticed because they were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in 1948. The wording remains because of a cumbersome legal process to have the actual wording removed, but the covenant is not enforced because it is illegal to do so. Snopes reports that it is very plausible for the future president not to know about the covenant because it is not part of the deed seen by the buyers and sellers, but part of a larger record recorded with the county. Snopes also dismisses the liberal claim that the conservative media swept it under the rug when the conservative reporter Matt Drudge clearly did report on the issue. President Bush Waves at Stevie Wonder Many of the internet rumors that went around during the Bush presidency had to do with supposed gaffes that were supposed to show the presidents low intelligence. This example is another such story. Snopes listed this as false as well. As they reasoned, it is probably untrue as it was a very slight wave and from a distance, so it was likely meant for someone else. They even provide benefit of the doubt to the president, stating that the gesture of waving is an ingrained gesture of greeting, and something we might do even before thinking about it. This is even more so for a politician. As they state, this is likely more of a result of the caricature of President Bush then it is of his actual actions. Mitt Romneys Shoe Shine Snopes rates the photos above as real, but with an inaccurate description. The claim going with the photo is that while President Obama is a man of the people who fist bumps janitors, Governor Romney is one who will stop anywhere to get a shoe shine. What is actually happening in the Romney photograph is he is getting a security check before boarding a flight. The photo description has a pretty obvious liberal origin, and Snopes shows it to be false. Romney uses a KKK slogan for his own campaign The Washington Post is often accused of liberal bias. In one such case, a blogger for the paper reported Romney was using Keep America American as a slogan, which is associated with the white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan. This started because of a report that Romney used the phrase during a campaign stop in Iowa. The Los Angeles Times later issued a correction, saying they misquoted the governor. Romney actually was saying keep America America, which is in reference to a less government policy, and not in any way race related. However, the rumor was perpetuated by the Washington Post, and Snopes addressed it. Snopes went so far as to find a video of Romney using that same phrase, showing he clearly was saying keep America America, and not the phrase which he is accused of saying. The blogger for the Post was fired, and a correction was added to the piece. Nice work by Snopes, and not something I would expect if there was a massive liberal bias. Trusted Sources What did I learn from this? I learned there is yet another quack website out there, and that WorldTruth.tv is a fear-mongering, conspiracy website that should be avoided. Snopes will continue to serve its purpose in debunking social media nonsense. Although there have been one or two cases where they havent been able to get an answer, or a case or two where perhaps they didnt go back to update something when additional information comes forth, they generally do a great job investigating claims and rumors of all kindsregardless of politics. I also will continue to investigate claims about my sources being unreliable. But I have found that sites like Science Based Medicine, Skeptoid, Bad Astronomy, and even Wikipedia (in some cases) can be good sources of information, especially when they can be quickly checked against primary sources (such as scientific papers). How deeply I investigate will depend on the purpose, but these sites will continue to serve as one place to start. Wikipedia only continues to improve thanks to the effort of Susan Gerbic and the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project. Hopefully all of our efforts to separate the good from the bad will keep our trusted sources trustworthy. SNOPES.COM IS Liberal Biased - Facebook -----> www.facebook.com/pages/SNOPESCOM-IS-Libera... SNOPES.COM IS Liberal Biased. 119 likes · 2 talking about this. FYI please don't useSnopes.com anymore for fact checking Is snopes.com biased? ------> www.snopes.com Fact Check Notes I will never trust your fact-checking site in the future. Your blatant liberal bias is and your disingenuous answers are a travesty to anyone looking for information ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 iow's,,, liberals can use any site, regardless of how biased, as their authority. but convervatives, no matter what site it is on the net.... can't because liberals will attack the source, and try to find something wrong with something else unrelated to the subject, and that is fine with liberals. Like the cheapshot warriors - they are allowed to trap arms and hold them, hold other players' waists, trip them... hell, do anything they want. kick em in the groin, elbow them in the head. but sissy steve kerr and his dirty sissie boys had better get a foul on a layup, even when Green was NOT touched. Just a self-serving farce. and after eight years, like fblew just did, any excuse to bash Bush, bring him into any conversation about current scandals etc, about obaMao... and there ya go. They freaking emotionally knee jerk about Bush, to indirectly defend liberal feelings, and to ignore the original content of the op. It's tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Lol jbluh doesn't understand how courts work. Redefining or reinterpreting an existing law on the books is the same as writing a new one. A man now can't be charged with beastiality for smearing peanut butter in his daughters genitals and making the family dog lick it off. You could at least argue that the court didn't try to make new policy like to US Supreme Court when they illegally legalized gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 liberals want to do that to our Constitution. especially our 1st and 2nd Amendments. The first because they demand the power to control, to keep their power. the second, for the same reason, and to make Americans more easily intimated by mob rule, and black on white crime. liberalism means never having to say you're sorry; you just get to wail and divert attention to some other subject that also makes you mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 iow's,,, liberals can use any site, regardless of how biased, as their authority... Not at all. Anyone is free to use any source that they want to in order to support their argument, liberal or conservative, but that doesn't mean that they aren't open to scrutiny. Which, I assume, is what you were trying to do when you "researched" Snopes. However, if you're objective was to try to discredit it by the links you blindly copy/pasted found, then you did a rather poor job. The first link was to an opinion piece which actually supported Snopes impartiality, and gave several examples of where stories about conservatives were found to be false - not something a supposed liberal-biased website would be likely to do. Your second link was to a Facebook which hasn't posted anything except for the random comment in well over a year; the few examples of supposed bias posted by the random facebook users was pretty much debunked by other users. And your final link is to a user comment section on Snopes itself. If you are indeed trying to show bias in Snopes, then it doesn't really make much sense to use the source that you're attacking to say that they are being biased... So....yeah. Pretty sure you didn't actually read what you posted, and just simply copy and pasted whatever came up when you typed your power words into google. It kind of explains the vast majority of your posts, actually... ...and try to find something wrong with something else unrelated to the subject, and that is fine with liberals... ...Like the cheapshot warriors - they are allowed to trap arms and hold them, hold other players' waists, trip them... hell, do anything they want. kick em in the groin, elbow them in the head. but sissy steve kerr and his dirty sissie boys had better get a foul on a layup, even when Green was NOT touched. Just a self-serving farce. and after eight years, like fblew just did, any excuse to bash Bush, bring him into any conversation about current scandals etc, about obaMao... and there ya go. They freaking emotionally knee jerk about Bush, to indirectly defend liberal feelings, and to ignore the original content of the op.... The irony in your post aside, you never did answer my question: Tell me, how many "normal, decent, healthy" conservatives, when they were the Canadian Prime Ministers and controlled the majority of their Parliment, did absolutely nothing to correct this law either? ...It's tiresome. While seeing you back yourself into a conceptual corner and try to bullshit your way out is not. Please, never change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Lol jbluh doesn't understand how courts work. Redefining or reinterpreting an existing law on the books is the same as writing a new one. A man now can't be charged with beastiality for smearing peanut butter in his daughters genitals and making the family dog lick it off. You could at least argue that the court didn't try to make new policy like to US Supreme Court when they illegally legalized gay marriage. Actually, I understand perfectly how the judicial branch works. Their job is to interpret the laws, as written; which the Canadian Supreme Court did in this case. Is the law woefully inadequate? Absolutely. However, that is the law that was written by their legislative branch, so the Court based their decision on how the law was written. If you want to blame someone, blame the Canadian legislative branch for making such a bare-boned law in the first place. And according to the article, it seems that they're working on fixing that law to make beastiality more encompassing, so future cases would naturally be ruled differently. Also, for a conservative, which I assume you to be from the jist of your posts on here, you should be encouraged that at least the Canadian judicial branch is doing their job by interpreting the laws as they are written, and not trying to make policy with their rulings. Isn't the conservative retort to whenever the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that they are, quote: "legislating from the bench"? liberals want to do that to our Constitution. especially our 1st and 2nd Amendments. The first because they demand the power to control, to keep their power. the second, for the same reason, and to make Americans more easily intimated by mob rule, and black on white crime. liberalism means never having to say you're sorry; you just get to wail and divert attention to some other subject that also makes you mad. ...can't because liberals will attack the source, and try to find something wrong with something else unrelated to the subject, and that is fine with liberals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Jblow's girlfriend: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Jblow's girlfriend: Ah, the habitual lush finally makes his appearance. Rough night in the drunk tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Yes. This. 100 times this. He doesn't understand it at all but he'll keep walking around with his chest puffed out like he did something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 It is a little bit ironic isn't it? You can kill your cow and eat her but you can't stand on a soapbox and fuck her. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.