Zoophilia, is it okay? — "Your Political Profile" TANGENT #1

[trolman]

The animal beeing atracted to another one from a difrent breed is ok but there is a BIG difrence between humans and animals.

Also that happened because it was a domestic dog who probably had few if any incounters with other dogs from the opposite gender cuasing it to get frustrated and attack any form of hormones.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Actually no, they had more than one dog and they weren't the same gender. So that explaination doesn't work.

So explain to me this: if an animal can be attracted to a member of another genus - one that /Isn't/ it's own, what's stopping it from taking that a step further and being attracted to something completely different?

 

[trolman]

Then call Ceaser from that dog show,im sure he'll have an explenation.Also annimals cant be concential because they are mindless beeings acting on instinct,we humans (the normal ones atleast) then to have minds.

What is the difrence between a donkey and a horse, and what is that between a man and a sheep?And are you comparing an animal to a human?Seriosly?

 

[Tank-Commander]

Yes, since humans /are/ animals, surely you know this? Also instinct is the primary thing which makes the act consentual, if you didn't have instinct to procreate, then why would you do it /at all/? driven by instinct, thus conscented by instinct. the conscent comes from both participants having the instinct and acting upon it of their own accord, or allowing it to happen when it's engaged by somebody else.

Also the majority of human actions are governed by instinct and chemical reactions which occur from that instinct, love, is an instinct, being protective, is an instinct, being aggresive, instinct, Humans are /very/ similar to animals despite what people want to believe. As far as our instincts go, there is /no/ difference, thus it's reasonable to make these comparisons.

Also if you'd kindly answer my other question instead of going off on a tangent.

If an animal is fine with cross-breeding within it's own genus, what's to say it won't take it a step further?

 

[trolman]

Yes instincts are our programing of what to do in this world but since we are humans we can act above them,we can think for our selves,we can chose our actions, we are free!Animals are not.Just because the animal does it doesent mean a human should.Follow the instinct to kill the burglar in your home and enjoy the time in prison.

Crossbreeding can be compared to fucking a person from a difrent race. Very very few animals take the setp further and im sure your friend didnt give birth to humanoid pupies so the process is but a mear pointless mutation.But still is even a percent of beastality consentual and what does that act give in the end?

 

[PurplePoot]

Show me why its good?The purple team say everything has to be proven to be bad,i say you have to prove it to me that its good.Also i am the Supertzar of the hive.Thread Closed.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying that assigning any sort of moral right/wrong to it requires evidence which you have failed to provide.

Im giving you the reason that its rape yet you choose to ignore it.

I've addressed that argument several times.

http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/...le-tangent-1-a-216587/index5.html#post2155365

 

[trolman]

And i've already addressed my evidence but you seem to ignore it,oh well again Concent isnt needed when its benifitial for mankind,because animals<humans.However pleasures of the flesh is something you can live without and its not benifitial at all.So abusing an animal to survive = legit ; abusting the animal for pleasure = not cool (its abuse because there are no babies) plus like 99% percent the animal is not "concent" even if they have such a thing because they're animals and we are people,we are superior.

 

[PurplePoot]

And i've already addressed my evidence but you seem to ignore it,oh well again Concent isnt needed when its benifitial for mankind,because animals<humans.However pleasures of the flesh is something you can live without and its not benifitial at all.So abusing an animal to survive = legit ; abusting the animal for pleasure = not cool (its abuse because there are no babies) plus like 99% percent the animal is not "concent" even if they have such a thing because they're animals and we are people,we are superior.

You can survive without meat, without eggs, without fur coats, without leather jackets, etc.

Not to mention the last line of your post completely contradicts the rest of it.

 

[Tank-Commander]

Yes instincts are our programing of what to do in this world but since we are humans we can act above them,we can think for our selves,we can chose our actions, we are free!Animals are not.Just because the animal does it doesent mean a human should.Follow the instinct to kill the burglar in your home and enjoy the time in prison.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't follow our instincts either, considering our instincts are what keep us from allowing ourselves to die.

But still is even a percent of beastality consentual and what does that act give in the end?

It gives self-gratification, which I'll remind is you 99% of the reason why people have sex /in the first place/ thus how is this any different or wrong?

(its abuse because there are no babies)

So having sex without the intent of having children is abuse? So you're saying 99% of adult people abuse eachother?

pleasures of the flesh is something you can live without and its not benifitial at all

Not benefitial? My child you really have no idea about human state of mind do you?

 

[trolman]

Maybe one day meat eating would be replaced but right now if everyone stops eating it, there wouldnt be enough food for everyone.

Eggs?So you are against abortion now?
Fur for clothes=haircut
leatherjackets=usless but cool,the meat still goes to good use so its okay not to thorw alway the skin

We are supperior and that we have control over our actions,you can be atracted to animals but know that its a problem and not fuck em. Beeing born that way is a terrible excuse to why you're doing it.

 

[Tank-Commander]

You've yet to give a valid reason as to how it's "A problem" which isn't either religious or "it's just not natural" (which it is) Also they meant eggs as in /food/ eggs.

Also "being born that way" is the /perfect/ excuse. Unless you're saying gay people /shouldn't/ be gay because we're "superior to animals" and it's "equally" "pointless" to be gay in that there's nothing "useful" from it.

Also if you think you're above your own instincts then you are sadly mistaken, humans are slaves to their instincts wether they like to think so or not.

Edit: there's also /MANY/ questions in this thread you've failed to answer.

 

[trolman]

~Instincts are not justifyable.

~Im talkign about what the 99% of the animals not willing to cooperate.

~People are ment to have children between each other so sex like that is okay,animals and people arent so it is abuse.

~The pleasure is there to stimulate the babymaking.In a way it is abuse to the original purpose of sex but that does not mean its wrong.

~Actually you are the child here.Yes you can live without pleasure but that doesent mean you should live without pleasure.However your seem to live for it.

~You dont agree with my points so you see them as invalid.However i dont.BTW eggs we eat are aborted chickens.

~Im not talking about gay people im talking about zoophiles but maybe you dont even make a diference.

~We humans stoped beeing just instincts long ago and to me it still seems you are a slave.

Also i do not knoq how to multiquote :/

 

[Tank-Commander]

~Instincts are not justifyable.

~Im talkign about what the 99% of the animals not willing to cooperate.

~People are ment to have children between each other so sex like that is okay,animals and people arent so it is abuse.

~The pleasure is there to stimulate the babymaking.In a way it is abuse to the original purpose of sex but that does not mean its wrong.

~Actually you are the child here.Yes you can live without pleasure but that doesent mean you should live without pleasure.However your seem to live for it.

~You dont agree with my points so you see them as invalid.However i dont.BTW eggs we eat are aborted chickens.

~Im not talking about gay people im talking about zoophiles but maybe you dont even make a diference.

~We humans stoped beeing just instincts long ago and to me it still seems you are a slave.

Also i do not knoq how to multiquote :/

1)Instincts, not justifyable? you really need to elaborate on this one as to why as opposed to just making a statement.

2) That doesn't make it abuse, please use your correct definitions before typing

3) If that's not wrong, then why would doing it with animals be wrong, if it's "abusing" it in the same way?

4) "My Child" was a phrase, not calling you a child, please notice the context in which things are being used and notice if it's a phrase or not, Also do not insult other users directly without valid provokation.

5) They're not aborted chickens, they're unfertilised eggs, it's actually very different.

6) If you don't want the rest of us to see your points as invalid, then provide proof to the contrary

7) My reference to the gay community was a comparison of what you were saying, and then applying it to other contexts to provide a more visible reason as to why it's invalid, through stressing the flaws in the logic behind it.

8) No, we're not just instincts, but they still control almost all of our actions, it's only strong moral barriers which prevent us from acting on instinct, and even in that case it sometimes fails. ergo - we are slaves to our instincts.

 

[Firelord213]

~Instincts are not justifyable.

~Im talkign about what the 99% of the animals not willing to cooperate.

~People are ment to have children between each other so sex like that is okay,animals and people arent so it is abuse.

~The pleasure is there to stimulate the babymaking.In a way it is abuse to the original purpose of sex but that does not mean its wrong.

~Actually you are the child here.Yes you can live without pleasure but that doesent mean you should live without pleasure.However your seem to live for it.

~You dont agree with my points so you see them as invalid.However i dont.BTW eggs we eat are aborted chickens.

~Im not talking about gay people im talking about zoophiles but maybe you dont even make a diference.

~We humans stoped beeing just instincts long ago and to me it still seems you are a slave.

Also i do not knoq how to multiquote :/

--

Stop having different opinions than trolman. His opinion is right and 100% proben.

 

[trolman]

~when a human acts on instinct its not an excuse

~wut?

~only humans and animals do it for pleasure, a human knows they do it for the fun but the animal is trying to reproduce and they dont have a real concent like us

~your way of thinking gives it away

~I meant to add that some are but i somehow forgot

~You ignore me

~Homosexusal intercorse is between two people who know what they're doing.Zoophilia is between a man and mostly a helpless animal even if it appears to be concent,it is imposible because they are mindless

~The more moral the lesser slave

And firelord is right dont have a difrent opinion i'm always right

 

[Tank-Commander]

~when a human acts on instinct its not an excuse

~wut?

~only humans and animals do it for pleasure, a human knows they do it for the fun but the animal is trying to reproduce and they dont have a real concent like us

~your way of thinking gives it away

~I meant to add that some are but i somehow forgot

~You ignore me

~Homosexusal intercorse is between two people who know what they're doing.Zoophilia is between a man and mostly a helpless animal even if it appears to be concent,it is imposible because they are mindless

~The more moral the lesser slave

And firelord is right dont have a difrent opinion i'm always right

1) it's not an excuse, it's a reason. While it doesn't have much weight in places like court, it is still a valid reason to do something

2) "~People are ment to have children between each other so sex like that is okay,animals and people arent so it is abuse."

"Animals and people aren't so it is abuse"

This is where my comparison to the homosexual comminity comes into play again

Male and Male or Female and Female are not "ment" to have children between eachother through sex, so if they're not "ment" to, does this not make it abuse through your "definition"?

3) The animal is more likely to be doing it for the pleasure, not for the aim of reproduction, it's simply a matter of the instinct of making them want to mate, that ends up in resulting in offspring.

4) My way of thinking? Please, explain this one further, because I'm curious if you're trying to insult me or not.

5) errrr. no.

6) I don't ignore you, all you've said is "the bible" or "it's unnatural" throughout this whole thread. I'm talking Scientific papers. Which "Prove" what you claim.

7) Prove that animals are mindless. And that they are helpless in the situation.

8) Not really because your "Morals" will generally /not/ conflict with your instincts (note: Generally) Also you'd have to define "More moral" in this context, as if you mean the more morals you have, then you'd be wrong, but the /stronger/ your morals then it'd make fighting the instincts which break your morals easier, but regardless you would still have to fight your instinct, and you'd still be a slave to all other instincts which do not conflict.

9) Don't be up yourself, it's not a good thing.

 

[PurplePoot]

Most animals are very food-inefficient to grow (if they eat anything we can eat we'd be better off just eating whatever they eat directly, at least efficiency-wise), so that's a bad argument. In addition, if it's necessary in developing countries but not first-world countries you could say "we shouldn't eat meat outside of developing countries", no?

 

[Magtheridon96]

How about we end this thread with a simple question and brief answer.

Why is zoophilia morally wrong?

Logic and reasoning tells us it's not morally wrong because we have no reason to say it is.
If you can give one clear reason as to why it is morally wrong, then PurplePoot will attempt to oppose it. If he fails, he will accept it and we can say that zoophilia is morally wrong. Else, we can continue to say that zoophilia is irrelevant to morality. (You can neither say it's right nor wrong.)

 

[trolman]

Im tierd of this shit tank private you're just trying to use my own words against me no where did i mention the bible nor did i say anything negative about the homos, you are making a conenction in the efford to make me look bad.Whatever you say at the end of the day zoophilia is illegal and i intend to keep it thatway (I HAVE THE POWER!) But whatever its not like your oppinions matterer so i say we shut up.I never wanted a thread but admins were eager to make one.And no i still heavily condem zoophilia since you people failed to show me the "beautiful" "natural" connection between man and beast.But enough about that.

 

[Adiktuz]

I agree with Maggy's question...

Personally I believe this question cannot be answered by Logic because it (logic) does not really provide a good basis on why it is right or wrong...

and this thread is actually useless since no one here wants to change his views... so its better to close this soon...

 

[Tank-Commander]

Indeed, but for the record, (before this is closed) I want to make this clear:

I didn't say you said anything about the homosexual community, I said what you have said has the implications that you'd think their way of life would be abuse, that's all that was. Also on the first few pages you certainly didn't mention the bible/god/religious context.

Additionally, you Wanted us to show you a beautiful connection between "man and beast"? Considering you condem it, that's be rather impossible anyway.

Oh and beastiality/zoophilia is /not/ illegal in a lot of places (just so you know)

eitherway, just waiting for it to get closed now =P

 

[Magtheridon96]

Here's an interesting fact before we close this thread:

Did you know that 6% of the states in the USA allow gay marriage, while 23% allow having sex with animals?

 

[RiotZ]

Here's an interesting fact before we close this thread:

Did you know that 6% of the states in the USA allow gay marriage, while 23% allow having sex with animals?

I don't believe it lol.

Edit: You are deceptive, being that gay sex is legal in 100% of states, whereas animal sex is legal in 23% of states.

 

[gorillabull]

Whatever its still bad but you guys just cant understand because its a contradiciton to your personal belives,Zoophilia is bad.

THREAD CLOSED

ok and what is the point of all of this to see how good some people are at philosophy? well we certainly achieved that

 

[Adiktuz]

Whatever its still bad but you guys just cant understand because its a contradiciton to your personal belives,Zoophilia is bad.

then what's the point of opening this thread if you don't wanna see our opinions???

if you just wanna say that it is bad, you should have asked a moderator to close this right after posting so no one could have argued with you...

 

[trolman]

Those 23% just dont have a zoophilia laws but the acts are written off as crimes against nature.

Also theres that story about a guy who was fucking a horse but the horse kicked him very bad.The guy was too embaraced to go to the hospital so he died ^.^

But still no one provided anything to make me even consider not condeming zoophilia,you ignore my stuff i ignore yours :/

And i never wanted this thread i just didnt think there would be this much zoophiles on the hive >>

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Those 23% just dont have a zoophilia laws but the acts are written off as crimes against nature.

Written off indeed, with no more thought given. Seems rather hasty.

Also theres that story about a guy who was fucking a horse but the horse kicked him very bad.The guy was too embaraced to go to the hospital so he died ^.^

Well, it cannot be easy to live in a society where your outlook, however "right" is at odd with the perceptions of the people around you.

Socrates was branded as a heretic, were his views on ethics, etc. "wrong"?

But still no one provided anything to make me even consider not condeming zoophilia,you ignore my stuff i ignore yours :/

Your stubbornness in reading, and your unwillingness to alter your opinions, cannot be interpreted as the lack of capacity of the debaters here.

And i never wanted this thread i just didnt think there would be this much zoophiles on the hive >>

My pet dog says hi.



Further all you seem to have as an argument against Zoophilia is that-
"Humans are superior, and animals essentially cannot think for themselves."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

News Flash chum. They can.


And if humans are superior, how come animals are faster, stronger, and more equipped in terms of sensory perception? Sorta evens the odds, don't it?

 

[trolman]

Nah they stil went to jail.Socratus was difrent.Stuborness?Who the fuck are you?How does anything they say justify zoophilia as not an act of crime?

Wait your'e saying that animals have equall minds as our as that are as strong and more adaptable?

This is to all of you, if you're so pro-zoophile then just do it.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Stuborness?Who the fuck are you?

A troll.

How does anything they say justify zoophilia as not an act of crime?

The same way meat-eating is not a crime.

Wait your'e saying that animals have equall minds as our as that are as strong and more adaptable?

No, but they sure can decide if they wanna bang it or bag it.

This is to all of you, if you're so pro-zoophile then just do it.

There we go.

 

[trolman]

Yeah sorry but most of the time the animals cant fight back and even if they do that would not stop the zoophiliac.

Eating meat and fucking meat are two difrent things.

No im serious, if you like the idea so much just go to the nearest animal and start gettign pleasure im sure they'll agree.You have no problem with it so why care if you do it?

 

[sonofjay]

I know that there is a country where having sex with a horse is allowed.

 

[Tank-Commander]

I know that there is a country where having sex with a horse is allowed.

There's many of them

Also theres that story about a guy who was fucking a horse but the horse kicked him very bad.The guy was too embaraced to go to the hospital so he died ^.^

And you're happy they died? Yes because that's morally "right"

i just didnt think there would be this much zoophiles on the hive >>

The amount of actual zoophiles on the Hive is 0 if not close to 0 (since nobody has claimed to be or been open about being one) the Majority of us are defending zoophilia simply because your arguements against it are rather silly, and also as discriminitive as other people can be about any other alternative lifestyle.

Yeah sorry but most of the time the animals cant fight back and even if they do that would not stop the zoophiliac.

Still waiting for a Scientific paper to prove that

No im serious, if you like the idea so much just go to the nearest animal and start gettign pleasure im sure they'll agree.You have no problem with it so why care if you do it?

See my point 2 quotes up.

Socratus was difrent.

And he was different because?

Stuborness?Who the fuck are you?

Actually, you are being stubborn, that much is apparent to everybody else here. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also don't insult other users unless you want to be neg-repped.

How does anything they say justify zoophilia as not an act of crime?

Read everything everybody has said on the subject with an open mind and not with a condeming mind, there is plenty of things which justify it, in a normal sense. I imagine what you count as "justification" is /very/ different to what everybody else sees as justification and what you'd see if you had an open mind about it.

Those 23% just dont have a zoophilia laws but the acts are written off as crimes against nature

Actually no, some people in these states (and in other countries) Can and do practice zoophilia /without/ it being considered a crime, there are many examples on the internet of this i'm sure.

i never wanted this thread

You "Chose" out of your "superior" human mind to make the thread out of "your own choice" so you cannot pin the thread on admins. Unless you're going to admit that you're acting with the same intelligence you claim animals have.



Just catching up from after I went to sleep

Edit: Gonna have a list of countries where it is legal here in a few minutes

1) Belgium
2) Cambodia
3) Denmark
4) Finland
5) Germany
6) Hungary
7) Japan
8) Mexico
9) Phillipines
10) Sweden (was formerly illegal)
11) Thailand
12) USA: DC and 15 other states

That's all I found thusfar, but the scource had many Countries not listed for illegal and legal, so I would assume it's unknown.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

And while we are here, I know of a few countries where humans actually marry animals with the consent of society. I'll leave the details to your imagination.

 

[sonofjay]

A woman married the Eiffel Tower

 

[Magtheridon96]

I married my computer.
I hope that's legal.

edit
Apparently, it's legal o-o
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...numbers-of-people-marrying-inanimate-objects/

 

[ERYFKRAD]

And now my dog is suing me for divorce.....


Well, this thread was fun while it lasted.

 

[trolman]

Whatever guys, my care-o-meter has dropped below normal levels llllllllllllllll

Anyways thanks for all of the replies of everyone in this thread,please join me tommorow when I will make another imoprtant thread where you can all show me how wrong i am.Keep an open eye tommorow and God bless you all.

thread end

 

[N.Knight]

I'm like the cops, I always enter the scene when everything is busted.
However there is this one thing I would like to say to user 'trolman', to discus issues which are considered taboo by Abrahamic religions you'd have to learn to come up with arguments that are independent of your own belief system. You can see the result otherwise, all this brain bashing leads to no conclusion & you end up in the preliminary zone.

 

[trolman]

Goobi pls! When did i reference anything?Be proud of what you support.

 

[gorillabull]

i do not believe that op should make any more threads regarding serious issues as he has demonstrated through his posts that he is unable to process any information with a different idea than his is crucial in any debate to be able to accept new ideas because no one is always right he should instead consider arguing about something more age relevant for him like what is the latest toy that came out or what happened in last week's episode of spongebob.

 

[fladdermasken]

No im serious, if you like the idea so much just go to the nearest animal and start gettign pleasure im sure they'll agree.You have no problem with it so why care if you do it?

If you don't have a problem with crippled people then throw yourself into oncoming traffic.

and this thread is actually useless since no one here wants to change his views.

Poot and I are actively pleading for you to help us do just that. Like you should.

This thread would be easier if people understood the burden of proof.

Actually, this is what I want this post to be about:

Description of Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
   Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
   Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"
2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
   Jill: "What is your proof?"
   Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."
3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

And no i still heavily condem zoophilia since you people failed to show me the "beautiful" "natural" connection between man and beast.

If I told you men with buck teeth are horses in human pelt, would you or I be liable to prove it to the other?

But still no one provided anything to make me even consider not condeming zoophilia,you ignore my stuff i ignore yours :/

And still we replied for 14 pages to posts not entirely different from this one.

And we're not the ones sounding like a broken record.

Explain to me how a man fucking a farm animal altough yes arbitrary shouldnt remain forbidden.

Broken record.

N please tell me how we should tolerate sick perversions of the human brain.

Broken record.

How is this justifyable?

It is if you can't show why it shouldn't be justified.

I mean, broken record.

Whatever its still bad but you guys just cant understand because its a contradiciton to your personal belives,Zoophilia is bad.

Broken record.

Show me why its good?

Broken record.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Maybe in the spirit of scientific investigation, you should try it yourself and let us know how that turns out. We could show you all the proof in the world and you'd still not be convinced. Ergo, see for yourself.

 

[trolman]

I never looked to change my views, i was like wtf who supports stuff like that and there some and im pritty sure I never wil.Also gorila,shut up you have to carry out the burden of proof to show us you own a brain.And eryfkrad dont write this act as science please you're embaresing the people.

Somehow the closest you guys got was comparing it to eating meat but if everyone stops thered be starvation,the numbers of animals will rise off the charts and alot of people would lose their jobs.

The proof you guys show is that its natural and blah blah blah but in my eyes that doesent count, I wont throw alway my morals just for some random people from the internet who arent even zoophiles so why did we have this thread again?Oh yeah the admins -.-

 

[sonofjay]

Hmmm seems everything is getting out of hand, *grabs Krad's shotgun* *shoot Krad* Hell YEAH!

Anyway, Trolman, you're getting to everybodies belief, you don't like it, just stay away from it, we're not forcing you to believe or something, actually no one does, you're just the only one doing the issue.

 

[trolman]

The only one?Try the outside world,this issue is uber tabo. And no i never wanted a thread, the admins did. And who is Krad?

 

[sonofjay]

You're the only one doing the issue.. ON THIS THREAD. And Krad is Eryfkrad, and I'm still wondering why he is not trolling you 100%, maybe he got a head ache or something.

And yeah, you want me to try the outside world? I'm using my laptop outside my house everyday...

 

[trolman]

You cant troll the master.

I ment try someone else form the outside world.

 

[Troll-Brain]

10 pages and still no real pictures about it, i'm disappointed.

 

[sonofjay]

This thread is similar to this one, you might have some point, but try to listen to others.

 

[Troll-Brain]

This thread is similar to this one, you might have some point, but try to listen to others.

So in english you can use the verb listen when it's about written stuff only ?
It's a serious question, i know that in french it's allowed but i'm not sure about english.
I don't know what's your link, but a youtube video can hardly be a thread.
Next time, use the sarcasm tag or whatever, depends what you wanted to mean.