Talk:Bestiality and Britain

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Pro Tip

It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled Bestiality and Britain (which I gather is the beginning of an exciting new series on bestiality by geographic location). Yet the content (at the time this was written) consists largely of two block quotes. The first addressing religiosity in Britain. The second dealing with bestiality in Sweden (which is not part of the UK). You see the problem here? You never actually address the issue of Bestiality in Great Britain. Other than that, it's up to CP's usual high editing standards. --SteveK 02:06, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. Conservative 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --SteveK 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[1][2] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the huge amount of evidence for his existence. (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) - see: Atheism and cowardice). Plus, the author of the article is using the British study to estimate the amount of bestiality of Sweden. Why wouldn't the author mention that the British vet study was done outside of Britain in terms of dogs/cats if that were the case? Conservative 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

some suggested improvements

I have taken the liberty of suggesting some improvements. How do you all like these edits:

Removed picture of Boteach as he has nothing to do with bestiality

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

In 2011, in an article entitled Godless Britain Shmuley Boteach reported in the Wall Street Journal:

Britain today has become one of the most godless societies on earth. Its principle religious exports today are thinkers who despise religion. From Richard Dawkins, who has compared religion to child abuse, to my friend Christopher Hitchens, who titled his 2007 book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," the British have cornered the market on being anti-God, at least the Christian and Jewish varieties.

While 92% of Americans believe in God, only 35% in Britain do and 43% say they have no religion, according to Britain's National Centre for Social Research. The number of people who affiliate themselves with the Church of England was 23% of the population in 2009 from 40% in 1983. In truth though, if Britain's Christian tradition is dying out, the leaders of the faith have only themselves to blame, for perpetuating the country's highly centralized religious structure.[1]


(nothing whatever to do with Bestiality)


On April 26, 2001, in an article entitled Swedes have more and more animal sex the Swedish news website Nettavision reported:

No one knows for sure how many animals that are abused, but a British study from 2001 indicates that every 20th dog or cat that receives treatment at veterinaries, the injuries are not a result of a direct accident, but the animal has been inflicted the injury as a result of a sexual assault.[2]

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with Britain

See also:


Bible on bestiality and study on bestiality

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception).
Nothing to do with Britain

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."[3] The atheist population has a higher suicide rate and lower marriage rates than the general population (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and marriageability and Atheism and health). In addition, Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.[4]
Nothing to do with Britain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DamianJohn (talk)

This page should be deleted...

There is no evidence whatsoever. Whom is the British study referring to? I would guess since the article is about Sweden it is referring to Swedes, but since the distinction isn't made, you can't know whom the study is referring to. In light of this, there is no link b/w Brits and bestiality presented. GiveMeLiberty 12:14, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[3][4] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the huge amount of evidence for his existence. (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) (see: Atheism and cowardice). Conservative 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
The study WAS conducted in the UK, but it only dealt with abused animals - deliberate injuries - not all injured animals. 6% of ABUSE cases were SUSPECTED to be sexual in nature. The total was 28 cases in one year. More details here. --GuntheR 18:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Probably should be mentioned in article

Bestiality is illegal in the United Kingdom. See here. Did you know that only 32 states here in America have laws banning bestiality? It appears that many have banned it under animal rights codes, rather than because of morality. Also, here's an interesting paper about bestiality in early America. --SharonW 21:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I am guessing that illegality affects rates of bestiality, but Washington state and bestiality shows that immoral people do ignore laws. The war on drugs in the United States has not been very effective for example because laws and attempted enforcement of those laws often can only do so much. Conservative 18:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

And it's back...

So you're saying b/c ONE brit had sex with an animal, ONE artist painted a painting (and a few were dumb enough to buy it), and they showed a documentary on the subject, the whole nation is one big animal sodomizing dystopia? This is ridiculous and offensive. User:Conservative, you should at the very least lift the protection or move this to essays as this in no way represents any version of reality except your own. GiveMeLiberty 09:13, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm British, and my sex life has certainly gone to the dogs. --GuntheR 18:14, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Prevalence of bestiality in atheists and theists

I do wonder if there's any evidence to suggest that atheists are more likely to commit bestiality than Christians. THIS suggests that it's not entirely unknown for Christian clergy to get a little bit too fond of man's best friend. --GuntheR 18:31, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

And here is another example. --GuntheR 18:37, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
THIS case deals with the founder of a bible college, so probably not an atheist. The article talks about child pornography but other sources suggest that bestiality porn was also involved. --GuntheR 18:44, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
And a case from Britain, although not Godless Britain - a regular churchgoer jailed for child molesting and owning bestiality porn. --GuntheR 18:48, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
A church deacon from Virginia gets 22 years in jail for possession of child and bestiality porn... --GuntheR 18:51, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
GuntheR, I expect with the paltry evidence you have offered so far, you are probably going to be wondering for a long time. Conservative 18:56, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
What evidence have YOU offered that bestiality is more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? That would be none, right? --GuntheR 18:58, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Also, speaking as a conservative Bible believing Protestant, I cannot say I am very impressed with your paltry evidence. Conservative 19:02, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Where is YOUR evidence for bestiality being more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? I don't believe you've actually produced any, have you? --GuntheR 19:07, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

So Conservative...

If you are going to treat this article as your own personal essay, shouldn't it be labeled as such? GiveMeLiberty 12:35, 10 October 2011 (EDT)


This is a disgusting article,--Patmac 12:41, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

No, it's a dumb article. Basic fact checking reveals that the opening claim is false, and that the author was a fool to rely on a single secondary source. The 2001 study does not show a 5% prevalence of sexual assault for all dogs and cats requiring veterinary treatment. Rather, it shows a 6% prevalence (28 cases) among a very small subset of dogs and cats requiring treatment, namely those presenting with non-accidental injuries (448 animals in total). [5]
I note with sadness that this was pointed out to the author 18 months ago. JohanZ 21:37, 27 May 2013 (EDT
Givemeliberty, I cited a monthly, peer-reviewed veterinary journal and leading newspapers. It is no mere essay my evolutionist friend! :) I thought liberals loved peer reviewed material from the mainstream scientific community and leading newspaper citations. JohanZ, thank you for providing the journal citation. :) Conservative 10:38, 26 August 2013 (EDT)

Consider changing the title

To "Bestiality and The United Kingdom"

Personal tools