Total posts: 4,833
[RationalMadman] Can you show me a pro-taliban video as in explicitly being pro-Taliban? I am just curious, I don't want to search it myself for obvious reasons but I wouldn't believe it exists.
I was actually talking about Twitter in the context of a general social media corporate conspiracy.
Created:
[RationalMadman] But there are several, may even, right-wing podcast makers in YT with all kinds of stances, even flat earthers.
Exactly, they don't ban everyone right wing, only the ones they feel threatened by. Flat earther's aren't a threat, even QAnon is barely a threat. That's why Taliban isn't banned. Taliban will kill a homosexual on sight, call women property, and consider theology the only critical education but they are never going to influence a US election, not like dangerous orange men and funny bees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Here oromagi says something sensible but in another thread he's denying the space program (and obvious BoP).I am the North Star of common sense. I don't think I've ever denied the space program.
It was RationalMadman not you, sorry. You know stand only accused of not knowing the first thing about rational epistemology :p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The law should apply equally to all persons. If some non-celebrity had jumped on stage and assaulted the host on live television, that assailant would be in prison right now and facing some significant charges. When Smith's name was called to rec'v best actor award, the just result would have been for Smith to be in custody, unavailable for awards. Perhaps his wife could have stood up and given a few remarks on the heartbreak of alopecia in his stead.
I feel like I've walked into an eclectic bunch of mountain hermits who can only be understood by each other. You take turns being crazy. Here oromagi says something sensible but in another thread he's denying the space program (and obvious BoP).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
STIs are contagions they come from infected people not the acts that spread themThe majority of Americans have herpes and 1/5 Americans have an incurable STI.
That sounds false. I'm going to need a source on both those claims if you want me to accept them.
I don't even know why blowjobs feel good.
It's got to be a troll.
Created:
The best part about bad guys is that no matter how many bad things they do, they'll still do something worse and make more enemies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
To win or lose a debate doesn't matter, it matters if you learned something or taught someone something, but unfortunately there's no metric for learning--only for winning and losing.
I agree with this more than the first statement I quoted. The metric is popular support, not only does it have nothing to do with learning it has nothing to do with whether an argument stood or fell (winning and losing). It's a crutch, perhaps worse, a misleading temptation.
Created:
Posted in:
I debate for fun, and it's not like the results count for anything other than a d*ck measuring contest.
I've always suspected that is a prevalent attitude on sites like this, sad to see it in writing though.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You haven't the right to make that choice for others.You see, that's the funny part- I do. In a democracy, everyone else and I have the right to make damn near any choice for anyone.
Prove it.
Enough people don't want you doing something? People will get voted in to outlaw it. Oh, it is "unconstitutional"? If enough people are voted in, then they can just amend the Constitution and now its constitutional.
I see an appeal to force, nothing more. Your unsigned social contracts and your legal fictions won't do a single thing to convince me to obey. The bullets are doing all the convincing. Bullets obey many masters. If you're fine with that there is nothing else to say.
Subsidization isn't freedom.If you're looking to buy a house and I give you $100k to buy a house, don't you now have more freedom of choice over what house you buy?
If I leave the gravitational well of the earth don't I have more freedom of choice over where I go?
That is a completely different kind of freedom. To confuse it with political/ethical freedom is equivocation. Political freedom, the freedom that is established by the moral derivation I gave and which is referred to in the definition of proper rights is freedom from the force, threats of force, and equivalent deceptions of other moral actors.
Freedom to live in a nice house is a privilege, earned from nature or given in charity.
That is revisionism. It wasn't a war for sovereignty, it turned into a demand for sovereignty because that was the only way to get liberty and because there is no point playing for lower stakes when the other side has declared that you must die a traitor's death (something democrats today should remember when they throw around terms like "insurrection").Oh really? We broke off because of "no taxation without representation". In other words, we broke off because we didn't have the power to make the rules that governed us. The definition of sovereignty: "the authority of a state to govern itself or another state." We broke off to gain sovereignty over the colonies.
Wrong, in a teachable way though.
"no taxation without representation", so if they had been allowed to send representatives and those representatives had been consistently voted down that would mean that the exact same rules and policies would continue. The only difference would be that objections were officially recorded and ignored.
This ties beautifully into the consent error of american democracy. The principle set forth was that "government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed".... yea which governed? All of them? Some of them? A bare majority? In what district? In what area?
Answer: Bare majority, any area we damn well please; we have the guns.
The annexation of Ukraine is simply an secession in reverse. Who are the Ukrainians to go against the majority (when the area in question is Russia + Ukraine)
If what you are saying was true, if the colonies from the beginning were unwilling to share authority with the people of Great Britain and thereby risk being outvoted and oppressed then America was also founded on the implicit principle that the minority has no duty to the majority in a total area they do not care to belong to. In that case there is no such thing as an immoral secession.
The caution of the founding fathers in regard to pure democracy is well known, in that caution we see sparks of the truth. Burn away the arbitrary circumstances of history and it's plain as day.
People have inalienable rights. They don't come from governments, even democracies. Consent is a factor that comes from an individual mind and cannot be averaged.
No government, corporation, gang, or book club has an ounce more moral authority than the sum of the authority delegated to them by its members. Any law which does not implicitly recognize this is immoral law and should be swept aside.
No government deserves to exist in of itself. There is no coherent objective moral concept "sovereignty".
We each choose our end, and therefore liberty is the beginning, middle, and end. The notion that someone has too much freedom because they made a choice that harmed them in your opinion or even in their own is the tyrant's delusion. The tyrant can use lies and force to control behavior saying he is doing it for their own good but he can never fulfill the values of his victims because all of their values rest upon their self-determination.We live in a world that is unrecognizable from that under which humans evolved. Rules and structure alter the course of the choices we make. Therefore, liberty alone is not the beginning, middle, and end as you say it is.
If you're just going to ignore the important bits I'll run out of things to say fairly quickly. I didn't just assert it, I proved it. "rules and structure alter the course of the choices we make" has no relevance to my derivation whatsoever. It's just hand waving.
What is conservative? What is being conserved if not liberty? And what encroaches against it?Depends on who you ask.
I was asking you.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
When you grow up in a country founded in a violent insurrection in the name of liberty, liberty is the conservative value.[bmdrocks21] But liberty from what, exactly? It was a war for sovereignty from the UK. I think liberty is to some degree is a conservative value, but it is not to be confused with a libertarian/classical liberal desire to maximize freedom to do whatever one pleases with a few restrictions.Essentially: libertarianism is not conservative.
That is revisionism. It wasn't a war for sovereignty, it turned into a demand for sovereignty because that was the only way to get liberty and because there is no point playing for lower stakes when the other side has declared that you must die a traitor's death (something democrats today should remember when they throw around terms like "insurrection").
What is conservative? What is being conserved if not liberty? And what encroaches against it?
Liberty is worth conserving, it has objective value. Liberty is worth progressing towards, it has objective value[bmdrocks21] "Liberty" is not objectively valuable.
This is a copy-paste from me on another site:
Oxford Dictionary:Morality - A particular system of values and principles of conduct.Meriam Webster:Ethics - a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral valuesAyn Rand:Morality - A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.Notes on Definitions:I will treat ethics and morality as interchangeable, the shades of meaning are irrelevant here. Values vs moral principles are relative indicators. You start from a value and the moral principle is an algorithm which promotes or achieves the value. The moral principle can then be considered a value in of itself and be used for further derivations.Note that the algorithm is a logical relationship, causality or implication. In order for a moral principle to be correct logic is implicitly relied upon, but that shouldn't be surprising as there is no other way to analyze anything. Human thinking isn't logic and something else, it's either logic or faulty logic.A very important note about the definition of morality is something it does not contain. It is not a code of behavior that smacks you upside the head if you don't follow it. It's just a code of behavior to promote or achieve values. This is something many many people seem to feel is part of the definition and one of the reasons so many theists constantly think god can be the only source of true morality, because he has the power to smack you if you disobey.Universe of the SelfA person has values and they are chosen by that person. The human brain, and many other brains are decision engines built to a goal, to live. The human brain, unlike many other brains chooses not only the value of life but secondary values which are perceived to support life. The freedom to choose values is so complete that humans at time choose even to abandon valuing life.Note, this does not bridge the is-ought gap. There is no reason for values to exist other than that values are what directs the mind to action. There is no need to bridge the is-ought gap, value and morality exist entirely in the world of living organisms. There is no morality for stone and no need to try hopelessly to explain value without the alternative between life and death.There is one value that precedes all other values for a rational animal, even life. One value which cannot be abandoned because to do so is a contradiction in terms.That value is self-determination. You cannot choose to disregard your own choice. Every thought or action you will ever hold or take is predicated on your choice and to deny the value of that choice is to deny your own existence.For every value chosen beyond self-determination and including self-determination there exists a true and correct morality for the individual to follow. The form of that morality is determined by logic and may be as varied as the values held.The only personal morality which can be said to definitely exist for everyone is that they ought not allow their self-determination to be lost. They should preserve their own liberty.Universe of the CognizantsWe have individuals with individual moral codes. Subjective moral codes with one exception, self-liberty. Logic can link the objective personal value to others by this dichotomy:If one chooses to value liberty in abstract, he can without hypocrisy expect others to do the same. If one chooses to value his own liberty while dismissing the liberty of others he must admit that others should do the same.If it looks like the golden rule it is, or at least a specific implementation of the concept. The golden rule is what separates civilized men from savages.Still, this is a choice and not one that logic can make for you. The savage who lives by "might makes right" or "the rule of the jungle" is not in contradiction with his values or rationality.However, when applied to real people it can be seen that such men hardly exist; for if they were honest in their savagery they would have no allies and no way to gain them. Instead they pretend to be civilized men but in their heart value only their own liberty.The morality that arises from choosing universal liberty is objectively the only other choice to savagery if you define savagery as the decision to not value the liberty of others.Thus, you cannot objectively say you should behave in X way without knowing someone's values; but once you know someone has chosen to value the liberty of others a great deal follows from that. If they reject valuing the liberty of others and all that follows then either they are in logical error or they are a savage in disguise.Two principles at the root of two objective solutions to the moral question:1) The rule of liberty from the value of each's liberty2) The rule of power from the value of one's own liberty aloneThe existence of #2 does not help anyone win any arguments as to why they should not respect liberty. If someone has chosen this morality, you should treat them as they treat you: with violence and deception.
In summation, yes it is objectively valuable, it is the most objectively valuable thing possible and the only value I can prove you have even if you decide to kill yourself tomorrow.
Other values aren't balanced with liberty, the are inconsequential before it because they may only exist through it. Anything else is demonstrable falsehood.
[bmdrocks21] With the lack of rules, structure, and social expectations you have many of the plagues we experience today. While legally allowing people to mutilate their genitals is allowing more freedom, that isn't a desirable freedom to allow.
You haven't the right to make that choice for others.
[bmdrocks21] Freeing people the social stigma of single parenthood and financially subsidizing it might allow people to have more 'freedom' to not get married, but the ills of that are quite apparent in the performance of kids from single parents.
Subsidization isn't freedom.
Liberty cannot realistically be an end. It will lead to much suffering if it is treated that way.
We each choose our end, and therefore liberty is the beginning, middle, and end. The notion that someone has too much freedom because they made a choice that harmed them in your opinion or even in their own is the tyrant's delusion. The tyrant can use lies and force to control behavior saying he is doing it for their own good but he can never fulfill the values of his victims because all of their values rest upon their self-determination.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@bmdrocks21 I have some chores then I'll respond but I can't wait for:
Well, at least democrats don't take bribes from foreign countries.
The underlying evidence is much more abundant against democrat corruption. Democrats just control the media so you don't have it constantly squished in your ear and they are willing to corruptly prevent investigations so people rarely get charged.
Take impeachment for instance, I bet there will be serious republican opposition to impeaching Biden for a much more grievous form of quid pro quo than Trump could possibly have dreamed of. The number of impeachments is not then measure of presidential irresponsibility but the measure of how little the opposition cares about the truth.
Obviously guilty Jussie Smollett walks having only been convicted after corrupt attempts to prevent prosecution were bypassed. That's the privilege democrats enjoy, people on their side will shamelessly save you from investigations, indictments, and whistle-blowing because in their minds you are the good guy with the right-think. Republicans and libertarians will be like "the law is the law", like Pence at the Jan 6 counting.
A federal jury in LA deliberated about two hours before finding the nine-term Republican guilty of one count of falsifying and concealing material facts and two counts of making false statements.
LA huh? Let's see how Biden or either Clinton fares with a West Virginia jury.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It happened in this video: Blowjob goes horribly wrong - Bing video
On a planet of billions it's going to happen every once in a while, it is not a sane concern. If you don't trust someone enough to put your dick in their mouth sex is definitely a bad idea.
STIs are contagions they come from infected people not the acts that spread them, I'm not talking about wild polyamory, everything I said can apply to a small number of sex partner(s) who have clean health.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Birth control produces bad side effects for women and the women should not be forced to endure the side effects from birth control just so a man could have sex.They don't need to be forced and almost never are.Do I have to explain that human females are in fact sexual creatures as well?Most women are demisexual, so they don't fuck someone unless they think they can be on better terms with them.
The exact and quite immeasurable make up of their motivations is irrelevant. They aren't forced.
Second, How about you confine yourself to anal and fellatio?Anal is gross; I get shit all over my dick and I still might get an STI. I don't want oral sex because I don't want STIs and I don't want to get my dick bit off. With a size as big as mine, that would be very painful and traumatic.
If not for the bolded and underlined you could have kept that troll going for hours since I do err so on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt. Hope you had fun, til next time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
There is not a single law now or ever that does derive its claimed authority from a moral premise nor is any law by definition anything less than a matter of violence.What is the moral premise authorizing the popular bill to make Daylight Savings time permanent?
That is not a real law, it is called law but there are no criminals, no punishments, no code of behavior. To call that law demonstrates only a flaw in the conception of government. It's a declaration of standards.
You say "may not constitutionally" yea where in the US constitution (and that was the immediate context) is that? It's not there,First Ammendment
Incorrect
If the answer isn't moral it's irrelevant.False.
Then give an answer, and I will be unable to ask a series of questions that lead to a value assertion.
There are no problems without goals and no goals without values.Obv. False. An earthquake is a problem without goals. Surviving an earthquake is a goal without values.
The problem with an earthquake is that it destroys things we value. Survival is a goal because we value life. That is obvious.
You said "is necessary and appropriate." about a constitutional amendment. Necessary for what?The same reason as all constitutional amendments- protection from state intrusion.
Why is preventing state intrusion necessary?
"patriot act, terrorism isn't a private matter", "killing babies isn't a private matter", "sodomy isn't a private matter".Your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins. Terrorism is definitely a threat to my nose. A stranger's pregnancy is not a threat to my nose. A stranger's cock is not a threat to my nose (metaphorically at any rate). Just calling it crime doesn't change one's rights.
This is correct. It is also a moral statement and an aspect of the moral principle of liberty. The fact that your mind immediately went to this to defend privacy is confirmation that your understanding is essentially the same as mine.
So, what good would declaring a right to privacy do if someone thinks abortion constitutes someone's nose getting struck?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
instead of being actually traditionally conservative, we somehow morphed into conserving classical liberalism.
When you grow up in a country founded in a violent insurrection in the name of liberty, liberty is the conservative value.
Objectively there is no value in being old and no problem with being new, nor value in being new or problem with being old.
Liberty is worth conserving, it has objective value. Liberty is worth progressing towards, it has objective value. Let he who does not value his own liberty cast the first tyranny.
I vote right-tribe because they lie a lot less often and they tend to be wrong in ways that don't destroy civilizations, but if being conservative means favoring the old simply because it is old I will never be a conservative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I don't know why people continuously fail to realize that moral disagreements have no legal solutions.Fortunately, moral disagreements require no legal resolution. A politician's morality may not be constitutionally imposed by state instruments on other citizens.
....so naive.
Only a politicians morality (or corruption) can be imposed, only the citizens morality (or corruption) can be imposed. There is not a single law now or ever that does derive its claimed authority from a moral premise nor is any law by definition anything less than a matter of violence.
If you look at the world around you and wonder why no political disagreements are ever solved it's because people believe in inexplicable myths like amoral law.
You say "may not constitutionally" yea where in the US constitution (and that was the immediate context) is that? It's not there, nor is privacy, nor is a guarantee of abortion, nor a strong guarantee of liberty.
Why would an abortion ban be a problem? If the answer isn't moral it's irrelevant.
Why would a political right to abortion be a problem? If the answer isn't moral it's irrelevant.
"Why does the moon circle the earth?" That's an amoral question. "Why should I go to the moon?" Is not, anything with "should/ought" will root itself in values or it is mere assertion. The word "problem" rests upon a foundational context of an intention or an ideal that is prevented. There are no problems without goals and no goals without values.
You said "is necessary and appropriate." about a constitutional amendment. Necessary for what? Appropriate for what ideal outcome? Because people want it? Why do they want it? Why should their wants matter?
On top of that "privacy" is a good thing, but no one who views a certain behavior as deserving criminal punishment is going to consider that behavior a matter of privacy. You can guarantee privacy till the cows come home and somebody is going to come up and say "patriot act, terrorism isn't a private matter", "killing babies isn't a private matter", "sodomy isn't a private matter".
Privacy, as a value, only makes any sense as an implication of liberty... and not a vague liberty something precise which can be consistently applied by all observers to any situation.
Created:
Posted in:
I think Clarence is the one justice who I wouldn't replace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think a constitutional amendment formalizing a citizen's right to privacy, protection from govt control over fundamentally personal decision-making, etc. is necessary and appropriate.
I don't know why people continuously fail to realize that moral disagreements have no legal solutions. If one person thinks it's personal an another thinks it's child-killing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
[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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The west has birth control fully accessible that is free for everyone who can't afford it and reasonably priced for those that can afford it. We still have 800,000 abortions a year.
We have abortions because there are no consequences and barely any costs for abortion. We do not have 800,000 abortions because condoms and birth control aren't effective.
Birth control produces bad side effects for women and the women should not be forced to endure the side effects from birth control just so a man could have sex.
They don't need to be forced and almost never are. Do I have to explain that human females are in fact sexual creatures as well?
That's why I hope I remain a virgin forever (since I don't want kids) and any male without a vasectomy who doesn't want kids also should remain a virgin forever.
That doesn't follow:
First, If you were serious about not wanting kids why would you not get a vasectomy? Are you asexual? Well most people aren't.
Second, How about you confine yourself to anal and fellatio? Perhaps like female sex drive and consent you haven't considered those yet?
If not you then what about others? Is it not really losing your virginity unless it's a potentially procreative act?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
@TheUnderdog
If they didn't want kids, they shouldn't have had sex. I've been living this value my whole life. Why is it hard for other people to live prudish values (being a prude is a good thing.)?
I'll repeat myself, you can have continuous orgies without ever causing a pregnancy with some basic precautions. Prudishness is fully disconnected with pregnancies when brain is engaged.
You threaten to forcibly sterilize men because of something a woman they had sex with did. Since they don't have control over whether or not she gets an abortion, that's just blatant coercion.
That is a thin criticism, suppose the man was exempted if he was willing to raise the child and notarized his objection to the abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
[RationalMadman] I think that when right-wing people hear the term they apply a much harsher definition than the left-wing people who use it mean.
You can bet your bottom dollar on that. You would need to have a debate on the definition first :/ Or people could brush off definitions as mere "semantics" and see how far they get understanding each other with different definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Can you think of anything that has complete consensus?
I'll remember the <sarcasm> tag next time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
True or false, right and wrong.For sure......Concepts all.Which humanity as a whole has never fully agreed upon.
Well let's just stop talking about anything that doesn't have complete consensus behind it. What's the point of talking if not to echo each other exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Trouble is.Your argument has found the need to descend into the realm of semantics.
Trouble? The trouble is thinking you're going to figure anything out down there in the fog of vaguery and equivocation. Ascend to the realm of formality and precision.
And both can deem the other to be authoritarian....Which simply depends upon who finds what authoritarian.
...but are they both authoritarian?
Must the both be authoritarian?
If it does not serve to differentiate between true or false or between right and wrong of what use is the concept?
The legal enforcement of liberal values, is no different to the legal enforcement of conservative values....Both can be regarded as oppressive.
What can be regarded as X is not necessarily X.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I can use a real world example to prove that being born somewhere is not consent:In Iraq when rebels imprisoned their own families to starve them to death if said rebels did not return from fighting us, with the threat of murdering the families if they disobeyed... Clearly at least the children neither consented to being starved to death, nor of being gunned down for disobedience.
That is a strong example, in general:
Express consent requires that an action is taken to indicate intention. Fetus's don't take any action to be born. Implied consent requires that an objection is possible, also absent. Therefore fetuses don't consent to be born, therefore the baby doesn't consent to a certain citizenship, and at no point from that time is consent sought.
I have seen it argued that implied consent forms at some point because the person doesn't run away, but implied consent cannot be established if the only form of objection accepted is from a set of options smaller than the morally entitled one.
For example, if someone is enslaved on a plantation; there is a way out namely suicide. The failure to commit suicide does not constitute implied consent. The options to get out of the situation are being limited by force/or deception. Furthermore if someone is enslaved in their own house staying does not imply they consent to be enslaved, they have a right to stay.
So too with 'authorities' claiming territory. In order for staying in a territory to constitute consent to submit to that authority it must be morally established that the person doesn't have a right to stay in that territory in the first place.
I have never seen such an argument, thus I conclude there is not now, nor has there been, nor will there be implied consent to laws or territorial authority of any kind. Consent to social contracts must be express or there is no consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So check out the World and show me a Nation that is not ordered by authority.So we basically have democratic authority and order, or tyrannical authority and order.And occasionally some Nations descend into a sort of chaotically ordered multi-authority. Somalia for example.
If two guys, a sharp stick, and a demanded behavior is authority then there has never been a time without authority and never will be. That is quite besides the point though, the issue was not whether people claimed to be authorities it was you saying:
Anti-authoritarian is authoritarian.
Authoritarian, the "arian" or "ite" suffixes indicate that it is some kind of purportedly principled political or ethical treatment of various propositions.
A fruitian probably isn't someone who claims there are only fruits and an anti-fruitian is probably not someone who claims there are no fruits.
Whatever you define as an "authoritarian" an "anti-authoritarian" isn't the same thing it's the opposite. If no obvious opposite exists the axis of comparison which results in the greatest negation defines the opposite.
A) If an authoritarian is someone who wishes to impose their personal values on others, then an anti-authoritarian is someone who does not wish anyone to impose personal values on others.
B) If an authoritarian is someone who is willing to use force to impose a moral code, then an anti-authoritarian is someone who does not wish anyone to use force to impose a moral code (pacifist).
So in whosoever's head exists a notion of righteousness, also exists a notion of authoritarian superiority.
This implies an even more unusual definition of authoritarian.
C) If an authoritarian is someone who believes in the superiority of their morality, an anti-authoritarian is someone who believe in the superiority of no morality.
A very useless definition, since the human mind is hardly capable of purging itself of moralization and it is in the definition of "moral" that it is superior to the immoral.
Much like the to oft-relayed "the only thing I know is that I know nothing", but if that's all he knew he would be a poor philosopher and if that's all mankind knew it would have died a long time ago.
Created:
Posted in:
To ban any action or circumstance, the burden of proof in a free society rests on those advocating the authoritative stance.
It's good to see some sanity left in the world.
A female who gets pregnant has the same obligations to a fetus that a deadbeat dad has to his children.
Insisting that all assertions to be integrated into a coherent body of knowledge or rejected, even better.
Yes. Absolutely, Yes!! The penalty for abortion should be a mandatory kidney donation paid for by the man that impregnated the female (to save a life to make up for the life that was taken) and sterilization which would be endured by the female (to prevent you from having an abortion again).
This is some Solomon shit, and therefore makes more sense than most modern sentencing guidelines.
As an anti-Roe V Wade male who isn’t married (and doesn’t want to marry because women are economic leeches), I 100% Agree. Extend this logic to prochoice males as well to minimize the abortion rate. Ban the anti-Roe V Wade males from having sex outside of wedlock, encourage the pro-Roe V Wade males to follow. Exceptions if they get a vasectomy, as vasectomies for sexually active people are the least painful way to end abortion.
If the punishment is severe there is no need for overbearing preventative measures. A combination of contraceptives and condoms is extremely effective. Babies are not (in almost every case) slipping through them, "lazy" people are "forgetting" things. No need for self-mutilation unless you really can't stand condoms and you really don't trust the women to take the pill.
Furthermore "sex" is wider than potentially procreative acts.
---------------
There is something of an error in all of this though. Arguing for and against abortion in the vague mix of moral context and social-utility context misses the really important context that this was a supreme court interpretation of the constitution.
It is not for the supreme court to consider morality or social utility, if a judge says it is their place that judge is corrupting the system. Their job is to read the law accurately, and reject laws that violate higher tiers of law (such as the US constitution).
The claim of Roe v Wade (and subsequent decisions) is that the US constitution prohibits laws against abortion which is objectively and absolutely false. Any and all arguments that it does collapse to absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@zedvictor4
@Dr.Franklin
[Dr.Franklin] unrestricted freedom
That is a profoundly useless formula. Essentially: X can be anything except what it isn't. Equally applicable to Himler's idea of proper freedom and John Brown's.
So much better to engage in a Jan 6th style insurrection,[Greyparrot] America was founded on an insurrection.
Indeed it was, not only that with the new and CIA approved definition of "terrorism" the insurrection was preceded by terrorism.
[zedvictor4] Anti-authoritarian is authoritarian.
Sure looks like a contradiction to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the whole world had the same language and culture, we lose any rationality for war.
Underdog, meet the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and every Chinese civil war since the bronze age.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
For the benefit of Intelligent Man and the elimination of Worm Man.
Nothing ominous about that at all!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Artificial Intelligence Capitalist Benovolent Dictator
For the benefit of worm man or intelligent man?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm trying to think of some good arguments to go against taxing the rich to Eisenhower levels (93%), but it's hard.
Theft is immoral, expounding is available upon request.
Created:
Posted in:
The cause of war is moral disagreement not the mere existence of political blocs. The moral disagreement consolidates around a political bloc and then fights through them, but if there was only one political bloc or very few the moral disagreement would simply manifest as civil strife/war, perhaps it would build up more pressure.
There should be one government if that government reliably enforces a true an objective moral code. Any other type of government is tyranny, and thus it would be better for multiple governments to exist so that they may destroy each other or at the very least the least tyrannous may offer refuge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There have already been more consequences for Russians than the US has gotten over Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Serbia, etc...And I am saying it doesn't matter, there were no consequences for any of America's unjust wars. There will be none for Russia as well.
Just because you do the same thing doesn't mean you'll do the same time.
That's because it's all a sham, the sovereignty of nations that is. Nobody gives a shit about the sovereignty of nations and no one ever will. People are moved to action and judgement by emotion and ethics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Sum1hugme
Most of the evidence is on Hunter Biden's laptop. USA heavily invested in the Ukrainian Oligarchs in an attempt to make Ukraine an American puppet state.
I had not heard anything about that. I thought the laptop only established that Biden extorting money from Ukraine (in combination with other recorded statements).
The recording of Victoria Nuland casually planning the next government after the coup (what they call an insurrection on CNN) is what points to a desire to make a puppet state.
Why was Putin forced to invade Ukraine? What about them having weapons justifies the invasion? Even with modern weapons, Ukraine couldn't hope to successfully invade Russia, so Russia was facing no existential threat.
Let's put this in perspective. If China sent 5 billion dollars worth of arms to Mexico, should USA be worried?What if China installs a Mexican president loyal to Beijing and fiercely anti-American? Does that pose a threat?This is what America did to Ukraine.
There is perhaps a better example, Cuba; which was essentially a puppet state of the USSR. Like Ukraine enough of the people and enough of the military was in favor of this puppet-ship that there was no realistic way to turn the country away from the USSR peacefully.
Yet the United States did not turn it into a red-line issue until nuclear weapons were involved.
If there was a plan to provide Ukraine with nuclear or biological weapons I'll admit that the USA has invaded for the exact same reasons and has no leg to stand on.
Created:
Posted in:
India would never ever join that alliance, they loathe China's ruthless attempts at undermining India in Asia.
I am aware of that, but I am also aware of the greater context of India's history since independence. They got into a viscous civil war with the Muslims (now Pakistan) and only the USSR was willing to arm them. USA cozied up the Pakistan (enormous mistake).
People in the USA have recently been accusing India of oppressing people in Kashmir. You may not of heard about it here but they really noticed it there.
They will never join Russia to be with China, but they might consider Russia to be a more reliable ally than the USA. If the USA does something extraordinarily stupid at this time such as sanctioning India because they haven't sanctioned Russia hard enough it could convince them the USA is untrustworthy.
The CCP cares far more about destroying the US trade hegemony than any beef with Russia or India and will make deals accordingly.
The potential existed for the exact opposite outcome. The CCP threatened Vladivostok, stole Russian tech (like they steal everyone's), and you seem to know the history with India.
USA, India, Russia could have backed CCP into a corner. Now USA + Russia won't happen, Russia has only one option, win in Ukraine, back CCP, and hope the cold war is shorter this time.
If anyone thinks for one second any amount of sanctions or threats is going to make Russia back down they're nuts. Russian pride is no doubt more than half the reason this happened and it will not tolerate defeat or submission now that blood has been spilled.
If Russia had been given a new direction in a powerful alliance such as USA, India, Russia that pride could have been satisfied without killing a bunch of people and turning the world against it. Unfortunately we have had idiots for leaders for too long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
In these matters half measures tend to be the worst of both worlds. For instance the current strategy seems to maximize pissing Russians off and playing into their internal propaganda while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to actually win the war while creating an unholy alliance between Russia, CCP, and in the worst case perhaps even India.
#1) Don't let my administration say things like "oh their a nuclear power what can we do", yea they're a nuclear power but so is the USA, UK, France, and India. You can't let other nuclear powers use the threat of nukes for more than you do. You should say something like "we'll use nukes to prevent invasion of USA but that's it" If they say "we'll use nukes if we want ice cream for free" you need to call them on it... and by call I mean you need to do whatever they told you not to do.
#2) Don't let it get to this point, I think it was avoidable
#3) It's too late to be all "unconditional surrender" there is no such thing anymore.
#4) Create a manifesto which describes the necessary conditions and referendums for an area to change which country it is part of or become independent. Agree to abide by them in the whole world, not just for Ukraine.
If the Russians actually believe they are liberating the Donbas they'll agree. If they don't agree join the war on Ukraine's side.
Created:
Posted in:
I thought this was a joke:
Women are risky because they may have a soul and reveal that it is a hoax. Male sociopaths tend to make more long-term reliable liars.
Then I thought this was crazy:
Biologic = soul not .." has a soul " as you suggest.That men fry and women cry is old well known saying. Men are weaker { metnally } and less stable mentally and they too are a soul, not ' have a soul ".Your versions of soul speak is based on partriarchal Biblical non-sense, if not also other religions. At best we can say a soul is specific patterns embeded in the ultra-micro, Gravitational ( )-Dark Energy )( web/network/fabric/matrix etc.My wife believes we free will choose to incarnate/manifest in the observed time reality ( sine-wave reality }, as human. Others may think cow, wolf etc.Soul/biologic = synonyms for biologic life.
Then I thought oromagi didn't get the joke:
...seemingly unaware that of 596 astronauts, 72 have been women. That's a whole lot of scientists lying for no good reason that I can think of.
Then I wondered if it wasn't a joke:
Oh there's a very good reason, billions worth of reasons, let's say.I am also aware of that. You are unaware of my awareness and also unaware of why they keep it a low, reliable amount. I do not wish to post more though as it is dangerous to post about.Are you aware that not all astronauts actually (claim to) go up into space? Just curious if you knew some just train and stay on standby for their whole career. Other apply and die, burnt alive, in trials gone wrong (though which actually died and which were faked isn't known).
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Your OP is so on message for Russian propaganda that I somehow doubt you're a Russian.
Edit: I read your bio, I understand, nevermind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I feel like the actions described fit your own description of rape.
That is enough for me, because as I have pointed out it seems to me you have contradicted your own definition of rape by justifying how an animal doesn't need to understand.
That is an incomplete thought. Understand what?
You think it is possible to rape an animal, but you do not think them not understanding constitutes rape.
...them not understanding what?
Let me go though the only possibly relevant connection:
(a) You can't consent to something you don't understand
(a') Therefore you can't consent to sex if you don't understand sex
(a'') Therefore if a non-human doesn't understand sex they can't consent to sex
(b) Rape is non-consensual sex
(a'' + b =) Therefore if a non-human doesn't understand sex, but have sex they have been raped
I have never said they don't understand sex. They understand sex.
I have said what they cannot understand cannot be required of them. They do not understand covid, yet covid is real. You cannot say "it is immoral to walk your dog if the dog doesn't understand covid". If they can't understand they have no responsibility, you don't wait on their impossible consent you make the call.
If you put them in a car, they don't know the car can crash. They can consent to get into the car, go some place else, look at the scenery because that is what they know might happen. If the car crashes you can't say "well you know they knew the risks". No, it's all on you.
It seems in your mind, as long as the animal isn't wildly protesting or throwing a fit, it is more or less consent. I have states that this argument doesn't even hold up for humans, so I don't see why that would be a justification for animals.
Well you exaggerate my position, but is essentially correct in the case of an animal who isn't doing any major motion. I do say that failure to object in some way does constitute implied consent, major motions would be a non-verbal express consent.
Implied consent certainly does hold up for humans. If you get on a subway and sit through 10 stops you can't claim you were kidnapped on the 4th stop even if you did absolutely nothing but sit still.
The same is true of human sex, and I'm not just talking about roleplay with safewords. People will just start kissing without signing a battle-plan first. They'll go to bed with nothing more than a smile and a tug on the hand. If a human was in a static receptive position, it wouldn't matter what they said twenty minutes ago they could withdraw consent at anytime.
What is the interval of checking? Do you have to ask for verbal consent every 5 seconds or every 2 seconds? We both know the answer is neither. If someone wants to withdraw consent and are able to indicate it they are obligated to indicate it. The only other alternative is that they could go to court and say: "Well I withdrew my consent 2.5 seconds after penetration occurred" while the other could come back with "by that time your honor I was already being raped because despite being the active party I withdrew my consent 1.3 seconds after penetration". They would both have an equally valid claim of being raped.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
But I don't like the idea of being silenced for an opinion, so I want to get to the core of why I think people are truly offended by this opinion.It would be nice to know, for homosexuality as well.This implies they are the same; They are not.
No it doesn't imply they are the same, it implies I don't know what causes the disgust in either case. I know the excuses that are given in both cases, but I also know the excuses fall apart easily under rational inquiry as some have in this thread already. If the reasons given were the true cause of the disgust the disgust would be destroyed when the reasons are destroyed. The disgust remains, thus the reasons given are excuses and a true reason remains undiscovered.
Animals cannot consent unless they have specifically instigated the exchange.
Can you substantiate that assertion?
So in even a best case scenario this means we are just trusting the judgement of the sexual instigator of the animal and hoping they aren't being traumatized because they perceive them not to be. Probably another big reason the idea is so opposed.
You're mixing contexts here. There is the the truth and how you or I can know it. Then there is society's involvement via law. You have already admitted society has no coherent role in regulating bestiality because you eat hamburgers (paraphrasing).
You explicitly wanted to focus on what I thought about rape, what my values in regards to animals are, and how I know anything about it. I'm not asking you or anyone else to trust anything. I have led you through the logic, I have founded it firmly in the widely accepted framework for understanding human-animal interactions, and the only thing left for you to do is see the animals consenting. You don't need to observe every act of bestiality, you only need to observe one to prove it is possible.
Your entire inquiry was from the perspective of a zoosexual and how they know they aren't raping or traumatizing. There is no "we" here and no "trusting".
to use them for a practice in which you get pleasure and they may not necessarily like it in every situation feels utterly wrong to me.Technically that sentence describes human sex too. Some things feel better for one partner than the other. Words like "use" here are for emotional impact. We "use" our spouses but we don't use that word. The only reason someone would use "use" is to imply disregard and less than mutual utility.No, no, no. I am using the words "use" here in the case of the non consenting pet, not the pet that chooses to hump your leg. It would be just as wrong to have sex with your partner if they did not want to according to both our understanding of rape.
Ok, confusing. If you meant rape why wouldn't you say rape. Anyway moving on...
The fact that they often can lack the ability to understand why what is happening to them is the ultimate barrier for me, and I am assuming the vast majority of people who take this view.But when pressed for details that notion means nothing. I need only ask you what is happening to them? Do you know? Which part can't they understand? Is it part they must understand for some reason?Use these same questions for a child, and see if the impact of your question changes.
Swagnarok has asked essentially that exact question, you can see my responses.
The answer to what the child needs to know and doesn't is nadda. It's not a matter of knowledge, a 13 year old can comprehend everything relevant about the act, reproduction, STDs, social pressure, and potential end states. Far more than a dog ever could.
The harm doesn't come from lack of information or consent in that case.
Children do not always understand rape and sexual assault either, but often receive great mental trauma from it, and are effected greatly later on.
...and you don't need a degree to see that do you? That is my objection to mentioning psychology. When the "experts" tell you only what you can see for yourself, can't predict anything you can't predict, often change their minds with no better reason than shifting public opinion, and can't give you any reliable mathematics or heuristics calling on them is pointless and often cover for something fishy.
A person with full capability to understand and act against something that has minimal understanding; It's just taking advantage. Whether or not you want to think your harming the animal or not, or justify the action not harming the animal, the plain and simple fact is if you go an masterbate into a sock or other inaminate object your 100% less likely to harm something innocent, so why keep rationalizing something immoral just to satisfy an urge?
...and if you didn't have any pets you would be 100% less likely to harm something innocent, so why rationalize something immoral just to satisfy an urge?
The plain fact is you could buy a stuffed-animal cat and pet it. That wouldn't scratch the itch though would it? A stuffed animal isn't alive, and it isn't the feeling of fur moving under your hand that you really want. I would venture a guess that you want a social connection. You want to know that at least in this particular relationship you're not letting someone down.
Yet you take onto yourself the responsibility you would deny zoosexuals to evaluate consent, pain, and trauma in a non-human because it gives you a dopamine rush to be needed by something.
As you can see you're not the only one who can pack contended assertions into questions. Nor are you the only one who can cast motivations in the most selfish light.
Or just find one of millions of consenting adults to help satisfy you if the sock doesn't do it.
If I equally applied the principles of secret truama and undetectable fear to humans there would be no consenting adults. Just because a human says the word "yes" doesn't mean they aren't secretly being forced by alien mind probes or some deep inexplicable fear that I cannot fathom or detect. Signed contracts prove nothing. Psych evals prove nothing.
Why rationalize the risk for my own sole benefit?
Back in the real world, there are risks so small that they can and must be ignored. In the real world you are communicating with your cats to a degree sufficient that they will suffer no trauma on your account. In the real world if you weren't trading your care for the satisfaction you gain they would be living a hard life in an alley, locked in a cage, or dead.
It's a good deal for both of you and if there was some way they could give you pleasure that you would accept there wouldn't be anything wrong with that either.
Even if they are "okay" with it, it feels like such an arbitrary way to determine that they are okay with it by just assuming the sounds they make are consensual.Sounds, body language, and actions. It is no more of an assumption than the method by which you determined that a dog doesn't like a groomer doing something or how you determined that a cat on tiktok is asking someone to stop.These can be mis-interpreted in place of sexual pleasure though. Like I pointed out in the "last duel" example. If someone is horny enough, drunk enough, high enough, or even just one of those enough, it can be easy to mis-construe pain for pleasure if it helps your rationalize it until you can release.
I already responded to the "last duel" argument by pointing out that no morals survive the assertion of such delusion or disregard. I have never claimed humans are infallible, I have only claimed that relevant factors can be known with very high certainty.
The reality of situations in the "last duel" don't seem to weigh too heavily on your notion of consenting to humans. What if you were drunk, high, or horny? Would your victim say "no"? Well you're so drunk. Would they run away? Well you're so high. Would they call the police?
And here we get to the sleight of hand. You have consistently angled towards the possibility of accidental rape, either because the communication is so subtle or because the human is so irrational. Yet in the human on human example you must still rely on escalation to find any difference in outcome.
A human can report to the police, but a dog can bite. If a dog can be so submissive and frightened that they won't bite even while being raped a human can be so ashamed and frightened that they won't report to the police.
If a dog bites, there can be no delusion of consent except in the truly mad.
Insofar as the impairment of mental faculties is intentional and no effort of will is used to combat it, the 'accidental' rape isn't so accidental. One should fear accidentally raping a dog just about as much as they fear accidentally raping a human... which is almost none because the level of impairment required multiplies with the chances of non-escalation well beyond reasonable expectation.
Millions of humans have sex everyday, they take the of risk running into some
My point about the cat on tiktok though, was mostly to point out that what is considered abuse by me, isn't considered abuse society to the point where action will always be taken. It was to emphasize a difference between what is legally allowed and what should be allowed. I can't make an argument that people who engage in this behavior should be locked up, because there are far worse societal things that get passes. That's all that argument is.
That may have been why you brought the argument up but you can't have me ignore other implications of what you've said, even if you had never said them a bazillion other people have.
...You admit that the grounds for how pets should be treated are shaky at the same time...
But proceeding on fuzzy grounds is enough proof for me to see that this isn't exactly as ethically secure as you try to make it seem to be.
You have misunderstood completely. The margin of error in the fuzziness is entirely "against" the animal.
I can't prove the animal has a right not to be killed; yet I do not kill. I exceed what I can prove society may require of me.
I can't prove the animal has a right to not be raped; yet I do not rape. I exceed what I can prove society may require of me.
I can't prove that the animal has a right to not be tortured, starved, and abandoned; yet I go through effort to avoid discomfort, feed, and shelter.
My personal values imply a personal moral code that is more restrictive to me than the universal one I can prove.
There is no shakiness or fuzziness on what constitutes rape or how to avoid it.
The only fuzziness, the only thing I am uncomfortable with is supporting laws which ban those things. What right have I do attack other humans when I can't prove that they are doing something wrong? No doubt many here would rather there be a law against bestial rape alone rather than no law at all, that would comport with my personal values and my personal morality. I'm sure those same people would be far less enthusiastic about a law against slaughtering cattle which would also comport with my personal values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Most intelligent life forms will take the sexual anatomy of another species to be disgusting.
That is an assumption nothing more. I certainly don't, and many of our ancestors haven't choosing to depict animals and humans in their full natural glory. There is no indication that any non-human animal has disgust reactions to any anatomy at all.
It's learned behavior that you're mistaking for some kind of universal biological fact. Just like some cultures will eat bugs and individuals in other cultures can't even be in the same room with one.
Moreover you forget the context:
You: While it's true that animals have sexual drives like humans do (though generally with different triggers), they [non-human animals] lack adult human intelligence, the adult human grasp of the full implications of sexual actsMe: Let me stop you right there, what are the full implications of sexual acts between a human and a non-human?You: First, it can elicit incredible feelings of disgust.
So if you're saying that the animal is disgusted by human genitals... how is it that they don't have that information?
If you're saying you are disgusted by the animal's genitals, why in the world is that pertinent information to the animal?
Before engaging in such an act, even an initially mutual one, no animal can understand what they're signing up for.
That is simply restating your prior assertion, I'm asking you if you understand what they're signing up for and if you claim you do then you should be able to explain which part the animal can't understand while simultaneously needing to understand.
And if they're mentally developed enough to have a self-image, that image can be disrupted by internalizing feelings of disgust.
I could go on about mirror tests and what not, but that would be silly. Almost as silly as assuming without evidence disgust, and then assuming without evidence that they would consent despite the disgust, and then assuming without evidence that they were traumatized by their own voluntary behavior.
This can cause psychological issues that human experts are unable to account for, since psychology is still "primitive" in that it only lends understanding to the human mind.
I'm totally with you on formal psychology not accounting for much. I am not with you on filling up the void of ignorance with wild speculation that conveniently always happens to justify your obvious disgust. Nor is the ignorance nearly as overwhelming as you seem to imply.
The theory of other minds is fundamental and inescapable. The solution isn't to stop interacting with other minds, it's to try your best to perfect your theory. No sane theory allows for the trauma with no evidence. With an unlimited power to presume trauma and uncommunicated states of consciousness I could conclude that secretly you actually agree with everything I say. It doesn't matter that you say the opposite, that's just an oppressive ever-present fear that makes you do that.
That would be absurd. What I know about what your thoughts must be based on your actions, such as typing complex language on a keyboard.
Second, the mismatch in size between human and animal anatomy can cause physical damage to one party.
Yes that's true, but such things are 99.9% predictable and in the 0.1% cases of mistakes there is warning in the form of pain.
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.
In essence: it was no accident
I imagine the same applies to a dog, or especially to anything smaller than a dog, or even to some smaller breeds of dog.
Well since you find the genitalia of other species disgusting it is not surprising that you are ignorant of them. Dogs have large penises compared to their body mass. Bitches have organs designed by evolution to take male dogs without damage.
A normal (wolf-sized) dog is completely compatible with humans in every respect and with all genders/sexes. If anything the largeness of the male dog presents potential discomfort for humans.
Obviously there are many breeds and some are too small for some activities. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It bears noting that animals in zoosexual relationships do go to vets, the vets are told the animals are used for breeding, the vets check the genitals and would report any unusual damage.
There's simply no way to communicate this risk to an animal.
There are only two possibilities:
A) The animal cannot understand the risk, and thus all responsibility rests on the party that can understand to avoid harm
B) The animal can understand the "risk", in which case experience will inform them.
Relative size is not a substantial risk to the animal if you simply do some basic research and leave a healthy margin of error. If the human wants to risk damage to themselves they have every right to.
In the same way communicable diseases are enumerated, and diseases that infect both species but only through sex are exceedingly rare (I don't know of any).
Third, the mismatch in strength between human and animal parties.
That is hardly inherent. Many people mate with horses and horses can kill you in 10 seconds if they really want to.
Rape is commonplace in the animal kingdom, and so far as I can tell, female animals are accustomed to accept the circumstances and not resist once the act has proceeded to a certain stage. Therefore, the mere fact that the animal doesn't seem to resist isn't proof of consent, assuming that the human initiated.
In nature as with a human, you are not entitled to assume a state of mind which is in contradiction with the evidence or to construct a complicated and unfounded structure of supposed causes when a simple explanation is available.
If intelligent autonomous female animals are observed to be highly receptive during heat (for example) the interpretation of "and in this state of mind nature has prepared them to be raped by paralyzing them" is straight insanity. The simple and obvious interpretation is that nature has prepared them to mate by making them horny as hell.
That doesn't preclude consent, it explains it.
If they were paralyzed there would be no examples of females rejecting advances. That is because of the nature of "intelligent and autonomous", it's an adaptation to learn and form new opinions. It would be useless to learn something and then have some instinct come in and prevent you from acting on what you have learned.
Female animals in this class will reject suitors, even during heat, even from the right species. Sometimes they decide based on the individual (sound familiar?). That's not a nervous override, that's autonomous will.
Even if the animal does somewhat consent, if the human party is dramatically stronger then that can make the experience traumatic. There's no way to account for this possibility.
Of course there is a way to account for this possibility... if the animal starts to feel uncomfortable they can vocalize, use body language, walk away/stop what they're doing.
There is no way to account for secret unprecedented trauma and there never will be. It is a flying spaghetti monster.
It was actually on DDO that I realized that is false. It is obvious in retrospect. A 13 year old boy can be horny, and they can do calculus (well some of them can). Informed consent arguments fail completely.Calculus is one measure of proficiency, or even a proxy for measuring intelligence, sure. But there multiple kinds of "intelligence", including emotional intelligence and simple life experience.
That's what they call wisdom. It's not information. There is no information that needs to be communicated that a 13 year old couldn't understand fully. If emotional intelligence and life experience was information it would simply be a matter of informing but it isn't.
Informed consent is a slipper that doesn't fit the foot.
Quite simply, adolescent children might end up having sex with strangers who, if they were adults, they wouldn't agree to have sex with. They're not well grounded enough to avoid being manipulated into doing something that they'll regret, since people do in fact regret having sex with the wrong people.
People can be manipulated at any age and adolescents will do many things they regret later in life. The trauma does not arise merely out of regret or knowing better later, it also arises out of the perception that the other party knew better at the time and didn't care as well as the perception that society had a duty to protect the younger party but failed.
Consider a high-school romance complete with sex. The adolescents are no more prepared than the pedophile victim. No more wise. No more informed. Yet no trauma (or at least much less trauma).
Why? The other person was perceived to be just as clueless.
It's not the information, it's the perception of dishonesty by relevant omission.
It is the complexity of the human mind that makes it more vulnerable and the fact that it is not fully developed that allows an adult human to look back at the age of 13 and say "I wasn't ready to make that decision and everyone should have known it".I think I understand the argument you're making here. No right to abstain from making a decision until a future point when they're able to exercise the highest potential of informed-ness is denied because the animal's incapable of ever reaching said point.
More or less, I would not use words like "right" or "informed" for reason I've already explained.
And the solution is not to deny the animal's capacity to have sex altogether, as we accept that they do among their own kind.
Yes, if someone said (and people have said before) that no animal can consent to sex because they aren't informed and therefore that all animal sex is rape they are confessing a monumental species-level narcissism as well as engaging in conceptual frameworks entirely devoid of practical merit.
They are saying the only real sex is human sex, the only real emotion is human emotion, the only real cognition is human cognition, the only real life is human life. Instead of correctly seeing sex as something entirely familiar to both humans and non-humans by virtue of common inheritance they claim it all for themselves. They can't explain the mystical secrets of sex which animals can never understand to other humans. They waive their hands at it.
Imagine if the same 'logic' was applied to another common trait:
Animals can't taste. That's not eating when they put something in their mouth and swallow. Those dumb brutes haven't the first clue what "food" even means. It's just absorbing nutrients.... that's all.... and the disgusting humans who try to serve animals food they might like are simply deluding themselves.
Yes they can ingest things out there in the wild, we don't care about that but when a human gets involved and tries to corrupt our sacred cuisine by sharing it with creatures who can't possibly understand.... it's basically poisoning... yea that's right poisoners! Well no the animals don't die but I bet their tummy really hurts! No sign of pain? you can't prove that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
(Ah dude I remember you. 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.)
See when people say "welcome back" that kinda supports my contention that it's DDO mark 2.
Thanks, I did use the exact same user name. On several other sites as well. I have plenty of other avatars but this is the 100% honesty one.
While it's true that animals have sexual drives like humans do (though generally with different triggers), they lack adult human intelligence, the adult human grasp of the full implications of sexual acts
Let me stop you right there, what are the full implications of sexual acts between a human and a non-human? If this set is important we should scrutinize it.
and the adult human ability to take full agency over the question of when they ought to be having sex and with whom.
That's not accurate to actual zoosexual relationships. The human has veto power on the time, but so does the animal. Therefore the time is when both agree it is. As for "whom" you can't get a promise of monogamy from an animal so not really. At least not anymore than pet owners control such things by having fences.
This is why it's not acceptable to, say, have sex with a horny 13 year old boy.
It was actually on DDO that I realized that is false. It is obvious in retrospect. A 13 year old boy can be horny, and they can do calculus (well some of them can). Informed consent arguments fail completely. That is not the reason, the reason is because of psychological damage from perceived betrayal and degradation after later maturation and in the full cultural context.
Adult animals are done maturing and they don't feel shame (for sex at least). They only perceive harm if it's quite obvious and they perceive it immediately. It is the complexity of the human mind that makes it more vulnerable and the fact that it is not fully developed that allows an adult human to look back at the age of 13 and say "I wasn't ready to make that decision and everyone should have known it".
In other words, consent isn't just mutual desire to have sex but mutually informed sex, or at least reasonable ability on both sides to become informed.
If one side can't become informed ever that can't be a requirement. Informed consent is a legal fiction, there is no minimum level of knowledge because the knowledge base is always expanding. The morally relevant formulation in cases where informed consent awkwardly does its job is deception by relevant omission.
Let me give you a simple example:
2022 BC, a man and a woman get married. They are very happy, new mud brick hut and everything. Problem is somebody has got a bit of a STD. It's not apparent though.
What is informed consent in this context? Is it necessarily rape between them because it's going to be around four millennia until somebody can explain what a STD is?
2022 AD, same story, somebody has a STD and they know it because a doctor told them about it. The infected person doesn't tell their partner.
What is informed consent in this context?
As you can see the level of information in 2022 AD cannot be had in 2022 BC. That information thus cannot be a requirement to consent to sex. The difference is that in 2022 AD there was dishonesty by relevant omission. There was something that could be understood and should be related and it wasn't thus corrupting the autonomy of the ignorant party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I don't want a debate on a utilitarian angle though
Then that was off topic, sorry. Consider it only for the establishment of a capacity to object.
But I don't like the idea of being silenced for an opinion, so I want to get to the core of why I think people are truly offended by this opinion.
It would be nice to know, for homosexuality as well.
Ultimately, on trauma, I feel like without being a pet psychologist, it would be hard for either of us to really determine what causes "traumatizes" an animal and how to accurately tell.
Heh, I don't even trust human psychologists. It is a pseudoscience. If someone won't engage in scientific thought they shouldn't participate questions of scientific authority because the former renders them utterly incapable of evaluating the later.
to use them for a practice in which you get pleasure and they may not necessarily like it in every situation feels utterly wrong to me.
Technically that sentence describes human sex too. Some things feel better for one partner than the other. Words like "use" here are for emotional impact. We "use" our spouses but we don't use that word. The only reason someone would use "use" is to imply disregard and less than mutual utility.
The fact that they often can lack the ability to understand why what is happening to them is the ultimate barrier for me, and I am assuming the vast majority of people who take this view.
But when pressed for details that notion means nothing. I need only ask you what is happening to them? Do you know? Which part can't they understand? Is it part they must understand for some reason?
Even if they are "okay" with it, it feels like such an arbitrary way to determine that they are okay with it by just assuming the sounds they make are consensual.
Sounds, body language, and actions. It is no more of an assumption than the method by which you determined that a dog doesn't like a groomer doing something or how you determined that a cat on tiktok is asking someone to stop.
Anyways I don't usually like to cut conversations short but I am admittedly losing interest in the discussion. Ultimately I think this is an agree to dis-agree thing, and so much of it is based on subjective morality, and personal belief and ideal that I can't really pack a punch with any of my arguments other than to try show that your own moral philosophy and values seem to contradict themselves to me.
To me it seems like you haven't even come close to showing a contradiction. I said I value mutual pleasure and liberty and you said basically said "but what if discomfort and fearful silence".
You haven't shown a contradiction until you can establish discomfort and fearful silence as a rule or unavoidable peril. It's all been "maybe", but my answer is a firm "not maybe, look at the facts you already take for granted".
I don't know. In my moral framework there is a recognition of an abstract alternative to might-makes-right. Certainly at some point in advancing rational faculty a non-human must be included. I thus proceed on fuzzy logic.This statement is enough for me to be okay with ending the conversation on really. It's not exactly a concession, but to me shows that there is at least some arbitrary justification being used to explain the deviancy.
I am not following you on that, that statement was about what I could prove to be universal and what I couldn't. It has nothing to do with explaining deviancy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
But this response feels like it's essentially admitting that lack of complete consent is okay as long as its a lesser imposition than a bath. Lack of consent for a bath is one thing; If your dog played in the mud, you don't want it tracking that around your house. The dog doesn't understand the implications of tracking mud through. You gain nothing from the exchange of a bath other than a normalcy; Your dog lives there and therefore gets to be cleaned. Other than that you are not gaining anything really from putting your animal through the misery of a bath, and the bath is necessary. Sex is not necessary for the dog, and it benefits you. In the case where the dog doesn't like it that much but is simply "putting up with it", this seems to meet your definition of rape, and violate your own moral standard of what should be allowed to be done to the dog.
The example was to disprove the proposition that they won't object out of fear.
From a utilitarian angle this talk about what I gain or don't gain is totally irrelevant. The earnestness of the objection is the best measure of the degree of trauma. You may say a bath is necessary, but if the bath is more traumatic than sex then either sex is not very traumatic at all or baths are so traumatic that as one user suggested someone needs to get shot.
The bath is not necessary, dogs indoors are not necessary, pets are not necessary. People would not have pets unless they got something out of it, and they're willing to put those animals through discomfort (baths, vets) to keep them inside. You could say they would be worse off if they weren't in a human home, but then that can always be said.
It also goes without saying that some animals will consent to a bath.
In the case where the dog doesn't like it that much but is simply "putting up with it", this seems to meet your definition of rape, and violate your own moral standard of what should be allowed to be done to the dog.
No it wouldn't, consent refers to the conscious decision to tolerate or cooperate absent threat of force or deception. It doesn't require enthusiasm.
I do not endorse the following kind of bestiality but nor do I condemn it as rape (because it isn't): Say the animal never really gets much out of the sexual acts, there could be a multitude of reasons, most are probably fixable but I digress. They have never been scolded or hurt for failing to cooperate, but they have learned that there is a unique treat at the end.
The animal then consents, and keep in mind the definition I just gave. They aren't being deceived, they know exactly was is going to happen and what they will get at the end. They aren't being threatened. It's simple bribery, and the animal has decided its worth it.
Just as a human prostitute can be bought without having any particular stake in the act itself an animal could. Neither are raped.
A really loyal loving dog might be more okay with whatever is being done to them because they love their humans and want to make them happy even at their own dis-advantage. You see this type of behavior in dogs who get groomed all the time, where groomers are constantly invading space they may not like being invaded. Just as with above you can make an argument that grooming can be neccesary. But I have to ask is putting an animal through discomfort they tolerate because they love not abuse?
First, that would not rule out consent, if they have decided to endure, so long as the reason isn't fear or deception that is consent.
Second, consent does not rule out abuse, if it is pointless and avoidable discomfort it would be abuse; but to the degree that no permanent damage mental or physical is done (like groomers) it can hardly be called the crime of the century.
In the same way putting animals in clothes is abuse. Every single time I've seen someone do it the animal communicated several times that they didn't like it.
In the same category would be feeding the animal something you know is going to make them sick, but they think it's delicious. They certainly consent to eating the food, but it is abuse because you knew better.
Third, notice how you took it for granted that I (or anyone else) could see that certain dogs are uncomfortable with certain things at the groomers. If they did not communicate that in some way you wouldn't have a clue. No one can escape the premise that the animals we live with can be understood. What can be understood can be avoided.
I would always advocate that there should be no discomfort at all during sex (or grooming for that matter), that's an ideal; it's unrealistic to expect a flawless record but you should try to get close.
The first reason is there doesn't need to be discomfort so don't accept what may be fixable.
The second reason is that any discomfort balances against the pleasure and/or desire to obey and could eventually lead to non-consent.
There is a TikToker I always see in my feed that I feel the exact same way about. Her handle is "Don'tStopMeowing", and she has a very sweet cat that can be pretty talkative when irritated. She constantly puts the animal in uncomfortable situations, invades it's space, and generally annoys it just so she can make amusing tiktok videos for her subscribers. I find this behavior extremely obnoxious and unnecessary, and think it will probably generate problematic behaviors between her and her cat's at some point. I also consider this abuse, but I doubt animal control will be barging in and taking her pets away anytime soon because of this since it's not like she's actually hurting the cat, just being extremely invasive for no reason.
Taking your word on the facts I agree with your conclusions, predictions, and the appropriate response of criticism without deciding to make cat ownership illegal.
How I feel this example is relevant is because annoying your animal for sex feels completely necessary, and breeds like dogs who are more submissive, and willing to satisfy their humans may take and tolerate this abuse much more than neccesary. So it becomes a question of "should" you do this thing, not "how much is this thing damaging my pet".
The 'problem' is ever present. If you believe in a breed of animal so loyal and submissive that they can suffer without obvious sign then for all you know simply having a pet is an endless gauntlet of abuse. If you believe there will be signs then the solution is to read the signs.
Assuming invisible suffering leads nowhere except a pet-less cheese-free society.
For all I know you could be lying to me about how much the animal enjoys this, or their enjoyment can be completely up to your interpretation when in reality the whole experience could be terrible and horrifying for them.
If it's down to direct evidence then there are no more arguments to make. You simply need to learn the language of the species in question and then see a consenting enthusiastic encounter.
I would love to have some truly scientific studies, it is only useful if people are too the point of being willing to look at evidence.
but in a lot of ways I don't see a difference between a human child and a dog.
Then let me bring one to your attention, if you leave prepubescent children alone you won't come back and find them making babies.
As an owner of three cats, I can relate to warning signals of cats pretty well. While bestiality/zoophilia may apply to multiple species, it's easier for me to wrap my head around you doing this with a species that has learned behaviors of submissivity, like horses and dogs however. Which is why it's also important that I mention different breeds. I feel like a rottweiler is more likely to snap at you for crossing a line than a golden retriever might for example, even if both animals felt the exact same way about it. You might interpret the lack of growling and submissivity (im making that word up, I don't care, you know what I mean) as a sign that this is okay where as with the rottweiler it would be more obvious if it wasn't.
I sometimes think people exaggerate the behavioral differences between breeds. Nurture has an enormous effect, and often people buy a certain breed with a certain reputation and then tolerate/encourage the behavior they were seeking. Always individual character must trump preconceptions when possible, that's why the bath example was given. If the individual in question has shown open objections before you know they can and will.
You mention horses are submissive, I don't have enormous experience with horses, but I wouldn't use that word. I would say gentle. They can react very strongly to something new and unpleasant but they can get used to a lot.
Regardless, as previously implied it's not like submissive roles are the only kind of bestiality which occurs. Even the most submissive golden retriever being asked to be top doesn't need to snap, he's the one who has to do the work and if he doesn't that's the end of that.
I am almost certain that someone has mated with a semi-wild wolf (I saw a video, looked exactly like a wolf). Not much of an argument for submissive tendencies in that case. Huskies, malamutes, GSDs, rottweilers, pit bulls, dobermans, great dane I've seen it all. It's not like zoosexuals need to go find submissive dogs because like I've been saying all this talk of silent suffering would be bizzare outliers, and it would be over in short order.
In almost every single case if the dog says yes once and you don't ruin it they will consider it a positive experience. You have a lot of animals who won't try it period and a lot who love it. Very little in between.
A wolf-dog and a golden retriever will act about the same when you're giving them a treat.
Leaving work now, will have to respond to the rest later.
Feel free to focus on what you find relevant, no need for infinite geometric growth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Why are you so keen to argue in favor of beastiality?
I am mostly responding here. The question is why are so many people so keen to argue against bestiality.
In general I argue in favor of liberty, that is I conclude not that people should engage in bestiality but that people shouldn't be attacked or shunned for engaging in bestiality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Well that certainly goes a long way towards explaining why your conclusions are so whack. Making up your own definitions for things is certainly an easy way of refuting counterarguments but you won't win many debates that way.
If you change the definitions mid-inference it's equivocation. Otherwise there is no problem, the sounds are arbitrary after all. BoP isn't a definition it's an expression of epistemology as a formula of responsibility. Misunderstanding BoP is misunderstanding epistemology. The fact that you thought it was something to lookup indicates a shallow understanding of philosophy.
Created: