Lunatic

The instance I responded to ADOL about was Bsh1 leaving the website, not being banned, in regards to accusations of bsh1 saying something in the Utopia Crumbles thread. . . . The thing I mentioned is why bsh1 left.

You began this discussion.  You claimed I said something.  I said no such thing.  Thereafter, I corrected you as to both what I have and have not said before, both in general and in the specific case you referenced.  The specific case you referenced was behavior in keeping with prior behavior of his in other contexts, on which I have previously spoken and which formed the perspective of what I said right after bsh1 left DART.  

Cancel culture?  Seriously?

This argument doesn't even rise to the level of frivolity.  DART is a tiny website, with a marginally active user base.  The site's user base isn't even large enough that you could reasonably argue that it functions like a public square, as perhaps you might with Reddit (e.g., /r/thedonald), Twitter (e.g.,  Trump's twitter account), Facebook (e.g., Trump's Facebook account) or Amazon Web Hosting (e.g., Parler).  The internet at large, not to mention the world itself outside of the electronic, remains available for users such as the individual currently identifying himself as "adreamofliberty" to have any discussion they like.   By your logic, if anyone objects to anything in any specific case or context, they're engaging in "cancel culture."  Which, I will note, is not what "cancel culture" is.  

Cancel culture, it turns out, refers when someone is subject to ostracism, in which they're thrown out of some social group (whether online, on social media or in person) because they have ran afoul of what is acceptable according to the woke, in some banal or trivial way. 

 And you missed my point about Nazis in a bar.  The point had nothing to do with the quality of being a Nazi or your feelings about them being present or experience with how you argue.  The point was about compartmentalization and its benefits; keeping some things out of some contexts, sometimes.  Not excluding them from everywhere, always.

 The all-or-none argumentative strategy you took is a nonsensical strawman.  We are only talking about DART, not the internet or the world at large.  

1. With respect to bsh1, I have stated precisely what he did in #312, above.  You appear to be confusing one instance of potential misconduct with other circumstances, the details of which I decline to relitigate more than I already have.  If you don't remember the events I described, that's for the best.  Your opinions with respect to why I might be biased are unavailing and do not require my response.
   

1. Your opinions related to the individual who posted on a prior site known as "adreamofliberty" are not persuasive and I see no reason why they require a response.  You have not addressed the specific point I made and until you do, I will not engage on that issue.  Even if you did, I might still not respond because doing so is futile and a complete waste of my time.  
   

1. As to your opinions about my intent in advising you to consider, among other things, the wisdom of dragging up ancient history, I invite you to refrain from such speculation.  You have done nothing to correct any "narrative," but have stated numerous mischaracterizations of fact based on events to which you either (a) were never privy, or (b) even if you were privy to some, remained ignorant of the broader context.  You know or should reasonably expect that I and Annie knew more about situations relating to bsh1, for reasons you have previously acknowledged.  It is preposterous for you to think you are better informed than I am on any such matter, and even more so with respect to what I did or did not say related to that individual.  
   

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.

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.

Consider the full implications of your example. If the individual is willing to object strenuously to a bath to the point of holding onto door frames (google it), where is their fear of physical harm? Where is their despairing acceptance?

If it only comes out for bath time, but not sex time; one can only reasonably conclude that sex is a lesser imposition than a bath in their mind (if it is an imposition at all).

If you never punish a dog ever for any expression or decision they make with regards to sex, they will not transplant the same concern they have about peeing the carpet over to sex. They will learn (quickly) that "no" is an option. They will only use the bare minimum of communication that is required, escalating only if necessary.

Consider a cat who does not like how it is being pet. A cat who is used to humans who pay careful attention to their body language and vocalizations will tail flick, then moan (like a meow of a certain pitch), then try to get away, then scratch and bite. That is escalating levels of communication, they go through them sequentially because the less violent and obvious signals have worked before. A cat who is constantly assaulted by petting from people who don't pay attention at all will quickly resort to scratching and biting first thing. They have learned that it is the only thing a human understands.

I didn't say I have sex with non-humans, let us say hypothetically that I have in some jurisdiction where it would be legal to do so. I could in that case know that I had the animal's consent by applying an inductive argument to their behavior (including vocalizations) in the context of my knowledge of their personality and history. That description technically describes the assessment of consent from humans as well, it is never known with 100% certainty; one simply must eliminate the absurd in order to live.

Understanding exactly what I am doing to them (or in my case what they are doing to me) is a different matter entirely. We both know that bit is going in that hole. We both know that the other endorses this procedure. The animal may understand fluid is being transferred. The animal definitely doesn't understand that the fluid contains tiny machines called cells. There is no doubt something I don't understand about it as well, I can't tell you what that is but if I had lived 200 years ago I would not know about the cells.

If Cathy Newman was doing it honestly there wouldn't be a problem.

I believe not all bestiality is rape, but some bestiality is rape. It is rape when it is not consensual. I find that unacceptable, however regardless of whether I found it acceptable or not it would be rape given the definition of rape I gave.

A legal definition of rape might not hold non-consenting bestiality to be rape because animals aren't persons under the law. That is why I am very careful about definitions, words serve a purpose and when a word has moral connotations like "rape" its definition must be carefully tailored to reflect the morally relevant concept, in this case consent regardless of some legal notion of personhood.

Just because worse things are "legally" allowed to be done to animals, I feel like that isn't a good argument for partaking in something especially if you feel it is wrong.

That is essentially correct and I am total agreement. Even a perfect liberal set of laws allows plenty of room for vice. However in this case this isn't something "worse" it's something considerably better than average.

I agree that it is unlikely that beef or pork eating will end anytime soon. It is far more likely that that meat will become lab-grown before people give it up. I would caution against believing everything vegan activists say. I have been to many local farms and there is very little in the way of torture (especially for dairy). I know there are mega-corp farms where the vegans get their shock-footage but I would be wary of their statistical math.

If you do believe there is an intractable moral problem in the production of a product then I would agree with the vegans that you are part of the problem if you consume it. In your case however the problem could equally be said to be a lack of transparency in allowing you to choose to buy "humane" beef.

It's not mostly legal in most places in the west. The legality has no bearing on the actual reality of harm or non-harm. I know there is no harm by observation and inference in the context of all my knowledge. That's the only way to know anything.

My values are liberty, knowledge/truth/reason, life, prosperity, beauty, and pleasure more or less in that order.

I don't always pursue my values to the best of my ability, if I did that would mean I was perfectly virtuous and nobody is perfect.

If I were to make a list of disappointing or frustrating elements where the correct course of action isn't obvious bestiality would not make the top 50. Why? It's actually very simple and straightforward concept. Above polytheist was talking about BSDM and safewords. That's a human making things as complicated as possible. A dog doesn't make things complicated they make things simple. They want food, they want to explore, they want to play, and they want what feels good to them.

It's not rocket science and there is not that much room for error. Communicating future intention is hard. Communicating current opinion [good or bad] is very easy. Anyone who has interacted with domestic animals can attest to this.

There is no tradeoff, there is no "greater good" or "lesser evil" it's just good. There is no contradiction on the horizon so if you thinking of one you're going to have to say it.

1. "bsh1."  You have represented that I accused the individual known as "bsh1" as a "pedo."  I have not accused the individual known as "bsh1" of being a "pedo," and to the extent you have claimed otherwise, that is incorrect.  Bsh1 directed sexually suggestive communications, language and comments to an individual that bsh1 knew, at the time he made them, to be under the age of 18 and at most 14 years old.  Bsh1 made those communications in the context of a "rap battle," which is a matter of record.  I and others, including esocialbookworm ("annie") objected to this, among other things.  Annie and I stated our objections in several contexts.   A consensus among active members began to form, relating to the inappropriate nature of bsh1's communications.  Bsh1 thereafter unilaterally decided to leave DDO.  Further, I do not see what, if any, relevance that set of facts and circumstances has to any matter raised in this thread.  As a general practice, it is best to let what is in the past remain there.  
   

2. "adreamofliberty."  You have made certain representations about prior activity on another site relating to the individual known as "adreamofliberty," who may be currently active on this website under the same username.  On DDO, as you will recall, I objected to that individual's use of DDO as a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals, in response to gratuitous and repeated activities and communications posted by the individual known as "adreamofliberty" advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  My argument there was simple: DDO is not the place to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  Various users, including yourself, disagreed and thought that advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals should be allowed.  Those views were unfortunate.  Here, my position on that issue is similar: DebateArt should not be a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals. 

You're free to think otherwise, but there is no world where my position on that issue changes.  There are plenty of places on the internet for deviants of all types to congregate; no compelling reasons exist to support the proposition that this should be one of them.  An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar.  Nazi walks into a bar.  The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious.  Other patrons ask why.  Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar.  Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar.  Simple as that.  There are plenty of other places online where those discussions can take place, like 4chan or other shitholes of the internet.   No one, including me, is arguing for "censorship," as such.  Arguments which begin from the proposition that all censorship is wrong miss the point, accordingly.

You may disagree, but my position on that issue isn't going to change.  

Other comments.  As a general practice moving forward, it would be better to abstain from reopening what, frankly, is ancient history.  What's in the past is in the past.  I and others, including individuals who may not be active on this site, have perspectives on them.  Prudent consideration should be given to what happens next, once all those old skeletons are dug up out of the ground.  Is anyone better off?  Will anyone's position on those issues change?  Are the foreseeable costs of re-opening those discussions worth it?  Just something to think about, before continuing those discussions, particularly to the extent doing so is likely to involve characterizing disputed facts in objectionable ways.  

The fruitless semantic discussions are what occurs when you don't precisely define what you're talking about.

I really don't know what an amoral meaning of "support" would be in this context.

I believe in an objective universal morality that (if pushed) could be condensed to single words like "liberty" or "consent" (they are avatars of the same concept). So I don't support non-consent, ever. The only time I ever encourage ignoring someone's consent is to prevent them from ignoring consent themselves. i.e. punishment/justice.

It's definitely not the same thing, it has different definition. There are three possibilities (from the classic venn diagram):

All rape is bestiality

All bestiality is rape <- the real contention

Some rape is bestiality, some bestiality is rape <- I agree

They would only be the same thing if all rape is bestiality and all bestiality is rape (at the same time).

You didn't actually ask for a definition of rape, I can't tell you my stance on [undefined].

Rape is sexual intercourse where at least one being possessing a discernible autonomous will at some point in its existence does not provide implied or express consent.

If you think "rape" is as subjective as morality there is nothing more to say. If you believe you can define it and its predicated concepts objectively and consistently with the common understanding, I would show you that bestiality is not necessarily rape.

1. Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.
   

2. Reining in the wildest and most offensive and repulsive debates, especially if they'll show on the 'hot topics' list for an extended period of time, so as to avoid potential onlookers to the website going W T F and never visiting it again (bestiality being defended is one of those ones).

I am asking you which is the lesser evil and how clear it is to you what needs to be done to keep this site popular and presentable to Twitter, as Airmax wants it to be.

I will continue to hold that animals cannot consent. I don't feel because of that they should get to be raped by human beings. They also in general do not breed for pleasure you have to be in heat in order to attract a male species.   Humans have sex at will so I do not believe that animals and people were meant to engage in sexual acts at all together. And I think that anyone that finds an animal attractive has something seriously wrong with them they are on the same level as a pedophile. There is an inherent element of dominance and the degradation of the victim on the receiving end that makes it unattractive as possible. Even in the BDSM community there is a level of consent and a level of restraint.

I am not going to morally defend dog fvcking, like I am not going to morally defend the torture of animals in factories before we eat them. Hunting for survival is one thing but mass torture of our food is probably worse than someone screwing an animal. I don't like either of them, but I'd rather just acknowledge that morality is non-existent, and still enjoy a cheeseburger and not think about what went into making that burger happen.

Unfortunately I can't craft a moral argument in the face of the proposition that "morality is non-existent".

If that was really true then nothing is worse or better and the statement:

mass torture of our food is probably worse than someone screwing an animal.

Has no concrete meaning.

I don't know how that's a here we go again, dude. I don't know what moral good you think you're championing here or what argument of his swayed you, but the dude fucks his dog. You dismiss these weirdos out of hand always or you're also a weirdo. Being a debater doesn't save you. 

It is a long story. In brief I was being harassed by a certain member on DDO, that person was trying to get me banned so he was constantly reporting me among other things. Since I so clearly err on the side of freedom I did not report him (at first). I maintained a catalog of contradictions, a condensed and satirical history of his harassment, and always responded to his derailments by challenging him to a debate and or reposting that condensation.

Airmax got involved and asked what I wanted from this guy, I said I just wanted him to make an argument to support his claims (which was the truth). Airmax said he would force that to happen (or else insist the harasser leave me alone), I was surprised; it was an unusual thing for a moderator to say. Lots of other things happened but basically he reneged on that. Instead he ended up saying that I would have to ignore the harasser, removed my posts/thread detailing the harassment but refused to remove the harassment itself (which would have been a bit of a job, it was everywhere for like 2 years).

"Lie" perhaps was too strong a word, made promises he couldn't keep certainly; but at the same time it seems very unlikely that he couldn't follow through on what he said he would do and much more likely that he was overwhelmed by the job and simply told me whatever he thought I wanted to hear in the hopes that the whole situation would go away... that would be a lie.

As for his "laissez faire mentality" maybe he changed, maybe he learned from what happened on DDO. Certainly if he had been laissez faire in the the described situation I would have found no fault in him.

At the risk of devolving into a nasty gossiper the idea that Coal/YYW would marry someone and then come to hate them so much that he would try and ruin him online with slander does not surprise me even in the slightest. In his case truly: hater is going to hate.

So you think this particular oligarchy is virtuous, as I just implied it is possible do to the right thing while simultaneously being unaccountable. For now it's not like any other forum is better. I'll probably post sometime, see if a witchhunt forms and how the system handles it if it does.

I hope that you realise that I've had and still have the power to keep the topics stale so that you wouldn't be able to use it to get the site popular but I didn't sabotage it.

Your ideas of me being salty and blinded by my dislike for you and Airmax are unfounded. I think that you should have run for the president's seat instead of Airmax and just kept your behaviour in check, you'd have won by a landslide much harder than he won.

I also would owe you directly for keeping me unbanned that time, instead of Airmax who I owe literally nothing to in terms of favours, so you'd have gotten my vote pretty much no matter what you did as I value repaying favours a lot as it's a good reputation to have.

1) I left DDO because airmax lied to me in the capacity of a moderator (at least that is what I remember) and look he's the president here. This site appears to have so many of the regular posters and authority structures of DDO that I might call it DDO II, and like the world in general it has not grown wiser or freer in the past decade.

2) The thread I linked to is discussing the controversial banning of wylted who was also an asshole on DDO but anywhere that bans you for being an asshole will ban you for serious disagreement too. Yes yes apparently he asked to be banned as some bizzare leaving ritual but before that he was controversially banned.

3) The creator of this thread was also embroiled in a controversy about being a pedophile, no doubt without proof or any relation to his capacity as a mod. Now also gone...

It would be funny if you weren't serious.

That is, you don't disagree on any particular point.  Comprehension is not what you are about- you are only here to insult. 

Got it. 

I'll repeat,

 To say as much demonstrates your misunderstanding

If you think we are saying the same thing than you have failed to comprehend.

Ah, I too once had a Black guy as a president. Can I has N word pass?

That's not what oromagi was stating. He has stated that his experiences with so-called "Black" teachers, "black" lovers, "black" friends, "black" bosses, "black" literature, so forth and so on, informs his cultivation of this perspective:

I was slightly teasing. Post #5 had sufficient merit on its own without the caveat "I was taught this lesson by black people"--as if so-called "black" people could grant you authority one way or another in spite of your extended interaction with said, so-called "black" people. That's what my question is poking fun at. (Forgive my grammatical error.) It's very reminiscent of "but, I have black friends..."

I was taught this lesson by black people.    Most of my elementary school teachers were black.  In high school, my principal was Bobby Seale's little sister.  I went to a small city college where I studied black poetry and black literature.  I was an apprentice baker to a black woman for two years.  I live in the oldest largest black neighborhood to be found west of Chicago and east of LA.  My little townhouse was owned by Black Panthers in the 60's and by Crips in the 80's and as a center of black politics many famous black people have walked down my street and shook the hands of the black people who lived in my house- MLK, Lena Horne, Sammy Davis, Jr.,  etc.  My next door neighbor is a black poet.  I've had black lovers and black friends all my life.

I learned how to write and speak the word nigger from Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston and above all, from James Baldwin.