I do know who you are though, and am glad you're back.
Bestiality
Posts
Total:
111
You are seeking something ADOL. You won't find it here. You can only expand your consciousness so much doing these sorts of thought exercises.
If you want help, gaining what you actually seek, PM me and stop arguing with the dead.
Last statement
Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.
This is why I know you are not ADOL. ADOL, would never say anything this clearly fallacious.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral2. Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.
What do you base premise 2 on.
We literally slaughter animals to eat, so fucking them has got to certainly be more ethical than that, but premise 2 seems weak. Why do you assume premise 2 is correct?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Look, I grew up in North Carolina. I believe you should be able to fuck animals if you want. However the argument that if somebody got an erection or had an orgasm during rape, that it makes the rape acceptable, is a little silly. It is an involuntary response to stimuli, and enjoyment of it, even when present is not forgiveness for it or even retroactive permission.
Also, a dog giving into his base instinct and humping your leg is not an invitation to fuck it.
-->
@Incel-chud
1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral2. Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.What do you base premise 2 on.
Well I could layout the whole ladder of reasoning, but I'll go one or two rungs at a time and see what people have a problem with.
/What should be is and can only be a reference to the ideal. The ideal is determined by values and a moral code is a behavioral algorithm for achieving and preserving values. (see is-ought problem)
/A right is a concise integration of a social moral code as it pertains to the treatment of an individual or collective entity.
/There exists a right to liberty, possessed by all moral actors who choose to value liberty in the abstract, from which all other rights are derived (and derived rights never contradict the root right). As a corollary the only socially immoral actions are in some way a violation of the right to liberty.
//What should be is that the right to liberty is protected, that is people should not be attacked unless they are violating the liberty of others, that is people should not be attacked unless they are doing something socially immoral.
/For something to be illegal means that it is something which will be be attacked by the government and perhaps citizens
///Anything which is not socially immoral should not be illegal.
Note 1: I omitted "socially", as a rule when I am talking about morality and don't preface it with "personally" or something like that I'm talking about social morality. Personal morality can be interesting to talk about as when Lunatic asked about it but it has nothing to do with ideal law.
Note 2: I included "inherently" that should not be required, it should be obvious that if a behavior of a certain definition is worthy of attack it cannot be 20% or 95% but 100% as required by the definition. I have noted in the past however people have trouble with this concept when they're not thinking clearly. e.g. you can't ban cars because running people over is evil. You can't ban sex because rape is evil. You can't ban guns because armed robbery is evil. Whoops I guess that last one trips some people up as well.
We literally slaughter animals to eat, so fucking them has got to certainly be more ethical than that
Unless the fucking is very torturous, yes.
Look, I grew up in North Carolina. I believe you should be able to fuck animals if you want.
I wish the state legislature was as enlightened https://www.sog.unc.edu/blogs/nc-criminal-law/legal-status-bestiality
However the argument that if somebody got an erection or had an orgasm during rape, that it makes the rape acceptable, is a little silly.
It is well then, that I have never advanced such an argument.
Also, a dog giving into his base instinct and humping your leg is not an invitation to fuck it.
"giving in to his base instinct" there is a lot wrong with that characterization. The assumption that he is fighting his "base instinct" in order to subsequently give in to it for one. Dogs and non-humans in general are not well known for their self-discipline but humans are no strangers to urges and instincts.
Having instincts does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions including giving consent. If a human goes to a bar, hits on everyone they see, goes for a one night stand they can't claim that they didn't consent because they were horny (well they can claim but they would be wrong).
Consent exists and always will exist in the context of instincts and urges. If there were intelligent machines their consent would exist in the context of their programmed values. There is no disembodied spirit of the ego. There is only your urges, your beliefs, and what you decide to do in the end. If someone throws themselves headlong into satisfying their base nature that is a choice no less than resisting. If you are speculating that no choice is possible (this would be in contradiction with evidence in the case of dogs, but not an arthropod) then consent is not only impossible it is irrelevant. Where there is no intelligent and potent will there is no self-determination to protect.
So yes it is an invitation to fuck him... in a particular way, and if he didn't mean it like that or he thinks better of it he can stop anytime he wants.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Stop veiling this in terms of bestiality. Go make a thread openly defending pedophilia, you fucking coward
-->
@Lunatic
look at his response to you
From graphic accounts that I've heard, young children who were, depending on gender, *n*lly or v*g*n*lly penetrated suffered non-negligible tissue damage given the comparably great endowment of the other person. And when done to babies, they died shortly afterward.It's hard to think about the cases you refer to, but the notion that harm couldn't be predicted or that pain wasn't extremely obvious well before serious damage occurred is beyond the scope of reasonable belief. The people who caused that harm knew they would cause harm (and thus did so maliciously) or were so dangerously deluded as to warrant interminable mental health confinement. They also ignored obvious signs of pain.
This is pretty much a direct statement that pedophilia is fine so long as there was consent and no physical damage to the child. Don't be fooled by what he is really defending here
[Incel-chud] Stop veiling this in terms of bestiality. Go make a thread openly defending pedophilia, you fucking coward
Your thread got locked before I could respond, but I did want to say you had a very bold strategy of fabricating quotes from me. Very 2022. You are ready to work at "independent fact checkers" or maybe run for office.
So from "am glad you're back." to 'secret-pedophile coward', what's the deal? Mega troll? On unsafe psychoactive drugs? It's something like that I mean you have a communist icon as an avatar and then talked about which isn't particularly compatible with liberal ideals you alluded to at various points.
Regardless does this quote fabrication thing work both ways? Can I claim you want to eat babies?
On a serious note I have zero problem discussing the comparative ethics of pedophilia, pedastry, human sacrifice, or anything else. There is a rule against promoting the sexual exploitation of minors, a rule that could be abused to prevent any honest discussion thereof if mods so wished.
For example if you said that pedophilia is evil because the flying spaghetti monster told you so would objecting to that rationale constitute promotion of sexual exploitation of minors?
I certainly think there is a witch-hunt culture around pedophilia. I noted the thing with bsh1 when I first arrived. The role the word "racism" as a cudgel to smash people you don't like pales in comparison with the word "pedophilia", just recently I was watching a bunch of right-tribe people (whom I generally trust and agree with) accusing the new supreme court justice of being pro-pedophilia because she once apparently had a case where she didn't fling herself off the bench and bash the defendants brains out.
Much as with nazis, making up easily disproved reasons, participating in witchhunts, and outright censorship does absolutely nothing but help 'the enemy'.
When people are afraid to reason because of the fear of appearing sympathetic it always backfires in two ways:
1) Is the obvious lack of debate which allows ridiculous echo-chamber sophistry has no answer, the stigma will keep many people away but once they're exposed to unanswered arguments they will assume that the only reason no one is willing to face the arguments is fear. That is the natural reaction after all, something so many people and governments seem to still be ignorant of: Russia just shut down a bunch of Tor nodes, expecting I suppose their population of grown ass men and women to thank the government for the censorship instead of wondering what is being hidden.
2) Is desensitization and dilution. When you're willing to accuse someone of something heinous to shut them up, lack of evidence not withstanding; people will eventually catch on. The boy who cried wolf could not keep the attention forever, and there are wolves [metaphorically]. Right now when you call someone a racist 60% of people say "yea right", when you call someone a nazi 60% of people say "uh huh sure", it's only a matter of time until that's the case for pedophilia too. Consider the QAnon crowd. Actually a very small number of people, but they were using the P word so that got outsize traction fast.
The solution? Do not confuse the severity of the possibility with the probability. If someone claims that if you don't plant a tulip the earth will be destroyed that does not become serious just because earth being destroyed is serious. Always consider veracity before allowing yourself emotional reactions.
Anyway it seems you are intent on comparing bestiality and under-age sex and I will not shy from the comparison as many zoosexual apologists will. They are deathly afraid of being associated with pedophilia because they care about winning the emotional game. I know the risks and I will continue anyway because as I have said for a decade I care about the truth more than anything else. If what I believe is true, it fears no analysis. I have also said that there is no such thing as an impossible comparison, only useless ones.
If the mods think this comparison is breaking the CoC I would ask that the offending posts (including incel-chud's) are deleted and that the comparison itself be de-facto banned.
[Incel-chud] @Lunatic at his response to you[Swagnarok] From graphic accounts that I've heard, young children who were, depending on gender, *n*lly or v*g*n*lly penetrated suffered non-negligible tissue damage given the comparably great endowment of the other person. And when done to babies, they died shortly afterward.[ADOL] It's hard to think about the cases you refer to, but the notion that harm couldn't be predicted or that pain wasn't extremely obvious well before serious damage occurred is beyond the scope of reasonable belief. The people who caused that harm knew they would cause harm (and thus did so maliciously) or were so dangerously deluded as to warrant interminable mental health confinement. They also ignored obvious signs of pain.
That was my response to Swagnarok not Lunatic. I made a similar response to Lunatic referencing this though.
[Incel-chud] This is pretty much a direct statement that pedophilia is fine so long as there was consent and no physical damage to the child. Don't be fooled by what he is really defending here
This reminds me of the word "literally" becoming a word that means "figuratively". A direct statement would at some point have to contain the statement which you claim is made.
The claimed relationship here is implication. What implication exactly?
The first implication is that if there is no physical harm, physical harm cannot be a problem. That was not implied by the quoted segment, but it was by other parts.
The other claimed implication is that if there is consent, lack of consent cannot be a problem. That was not implied by the quoted segment, but it was by other parts.
Those statements are both true, I'll state them directly in any context you want.
I had written the flying spaghetti monster thing before you said this, but here we have the pertinent example. Lack of consent and physical harm are often given as reasons why pedophilia is wrong. Indeed in the quoted segment Swagnarok was specifically referring to physical harm as a result of under-age sex.
Consider this thought experiment: What if the commonly given reason why pedophilia was wrong was that it would incur the wrath of god? That's not so hard to imagine, change a few things in history and we might live in an age where all complicated moral questions are swept under the rug of "god's will".
If in such a circumstance, I was an atheist and said "that is a poor reason because god doesn't exist".... would that be a "direct" statement that pedophilia is fine? Would that mean atheism is inextricably linked with pedophilia?
It would never be a direct statement, and it could not be an implication unless the accuser believed that the only problem with pedophilia was that god hated it.
So I will conclude with a question to Incel-chud, are physical harm and lack of consent the only reasons to condemn underage sex?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So I will conclude with a question to Incel-chud, are physical harm and lack of consent the only reasons to condemn underage sex?
Holy shit. I mean, I know it's rude to respond to questions directed at other people but... god damn, does there need to be any other reason?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Holy shit. I mean, I know it's rude to respond to questions directed at other people but... god damn, does there need to be any other reason?
Feel free to answer any question I pose to anyone. Does there need to be another reason? Not metaphysically.
In the context of maintaining the general opinion on underage sex: Yes there needs to be another reason. If there wasn't another reason you would have to treat two 16 year olds having sex the same way you treat a 46 year old man having sex with a 16 year old.
If DDO had banned discussion of pedophilia I may never have realized this because some (actual) pedophile apologist were on there making their case. It really is a "duh" moment when you realize it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I mean, one one hand I do understand what you're saying. On the other hand what you're saying is wrong, so... there's always that.
On a serious note I have zero problem discussing the comparative ethics of pedophilia, pedastry, human sacrifice, or anything else. There is a rule against promoting the sexual exploitation of minors, a rule that could be abused to prevent any honest discussion thereof if mods so wished
I support your right to talk about it, and would actually prefer you were open about it, rather than veiling it by pretending these threads are about bestiality.
16 days later
-->
@Swagnarok
(Ah dude I remember you [ADreamOfLiberty]. It's been like 6 or 7 years since you dropped off the radar from DDO and when you joined this site you picked the exact same username? Anyways, welcome back I guess.)
Was this him?
Bestiality/Zoophilia
-->
@Stephen
yes
it is forbidden to lay with a beast in Leviticus
That didn't stop Melania, did it?
-->
@FLRW
It's perhaps a tradition in Slovenia?
Personally, I have no problem with legalized bestiality. People say animals can't consent, but when have we cared about animal consent? We kill them for food. I'm pretty sure having consensual sex with them isn't as bad for them.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Personally, I have no problem with legalized bestiality. People say animals can't consent, but when have we cared about animal consent? We kill them for food. I'm pretty sure having consensual sex with them isn't as bad for them.
A concise and accurate analysis.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Perverse logic some might say.
But logical nonetheless.
Well stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
@TheUnderdog
Don’t people give horses handjobs for their cum as like part of their profession or something? Isn’t that technically bestiality, or do they have to swallow it too?
-->
@Reece101
Don’t people give horses handjobs for their cum as like part of their profession or something?
Yes, more in the old days. Now they have stands and artificial vaginas which make it much easier. They do this for several other animals as well. The primary purpose is semen quality tests and artificial insemination. During artificial insemination they use previously collected semen and stick a cold metal tube up the you know where. Often the female is tied to keep her from hurting the totally kosher and unexcited human who only wants to stick something in her privates for 'practical' reasons.
In cattle production bulls sometimes have it as bad as the cows, they stick a prod up the anus of a bull and induce ejaculation with electricity.
Isn’t that technically bestiality, or do they have to swallow it too?
Basically yes. You can tie up a mare so she can't escape or fight back, run a train of studs on her while she is screaming, but if it's for money that's fine. If on the other hand you take months gaining her trust and friendship and give her some fingering in an open field where she could kick your chest in it's rape if it excites you to give her pleasure.
The concept is totally disconnected from the harm to or consent of the alleged victim, it's all about the human's motivations. Which is one of the reasons I call those arguments excuses.
-->
@coal
Mocking Utility being valued to such an extent over Humanity?
-->
@Lemming
Lemming, if he wanted to make an argument or a point he wouldn't have been so cryptic.... but hey maybe you can play charades; none of my business....
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well, I Googled, A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia
Appears to be satire of how society can view people as cogs in the grand machine so to speak,
Their individuality, humanity, mattering less than the collective,
Which appears to say since we kill animals for food, how bad can it be to f*** them?
Though TheUnderdog 'does say consensually f*** them,
I don't agree with the idea of animals being capable of consensual f***ing with humans, myself.
Though the debate says children, opponent brings up animals at some point.
Further,
People often feel that one evil does not excuse the intentional development of 'more evils.
-->
@Lemming
I don't agree with the idea of animals being capable of consensual f***ing with humans, myself.
Yea you said so earlier in the thread, and you also said you didn't want to support your assertion with an argument. Now are you actually claiming you know what the hell "A Modest Proposal" has to do with underdog's point?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Indeed, when I posted #46, I said,
"Eh, I'm not so keen to argue against it, as I dislike getting myself dirty, with a topic I already with certainty consider wrong,
I'm not going to change my opinion,
'Maybe could change yours, but based on your posts I doubt it, I also don't care much."
If you had responded to #46, I 'might have said more, or I might have chosen to excuse myself from further conversation.
Been a month,
Though I'm 'still not 'much inclined to debate bestiality with you, as I've mentioned.
Well, coals link, is linked to A Modest Proposal,
I don't 'know what coals 'intent or meaning was,
Hence why in #84, I include a question mark,
Checking to see if my theory of coals 'meaning, was correct.
-->
@Lemming
If you had responded to #46, I 'might have said more, or I might have chosen to excuse myself from further conversation.
The human lifespan is too short to try and debate people who say they don't want to debate. I did find your offered reason to be indicative of a common confusion, debate is a means to the end but the end is not conversion. It is the truth.
No one honest thinks they're wrong or that they will be proven wrong. No one honest expects someone else to make such a confession. However when there is a true contradiction somebody is wrong.
Even if someone is very certain I will still debate because the moment you think certainty renders debate obsolete is the moment you make yourself vulnerable to delusion. Conviction and faith are indistinguishable without debate.
So I'll debate flat earthers, big foot people, holocaust deniers, etc... etc... on principle. You said "I'm not going to change my opinion", yea neither are the flat earthers; but that doesn't mean I won't lead them to the error. Yea yea you think I'm the flat earther in this situation, but that is the point of debate. To turn the abstract necessity of someone being wrong into a concrete determination of who is wrong.
Almost certainly someone is going to claim someone else is stubborn, just wants the last word, etc.. etc... then some spiel about "agree to disagree" yada yada. Most of the people here are like 10 year veterans of online "debate", the only way you don't know what I'm saying by heart is if you're already crazy. Every once in a while though, it reaches the level of formality and precision where the truth is very obvious. Then it doesn't matter who admitted what because those who love the truth will see it.
I'll walk the path with anyone, but if you don't know what the point of the journey is there is no reason to start.
Checking to see if my theory of coals 'meaning, was correct.
So charades, have fun :)
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Eh, the end purpose of debates vary, depending on different individuals goals.