Author Topic: Utah can't into filters on porn searches  (Read 19605 times)

PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #135 on: August 05, 2016, 05:52:54 pm »

I had not thought of it that way.


That's what they mean by "This conversation just made us all dumber." When you read and toss around the things that people like PDS say, it actually causes you to lose brain cells and forget the simple shit that makes sense.
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #136 on: August 05, 2016, 07:29:33 pm »
I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

This.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #137 on: August 05, 2016, 07:31:23 pm »
to exploit a rape loophole.

He totally ignored this bit.

Based on his quoting and rebuttal habits, it appears he ignores a lot. He quotes specific sections of people's posts and then fights those, instead of reading or accounting for the rest of the post.

Yep. One of many reasons I just don't bother to even look at most of his posts. Not worth the waste of time.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Q. G. Pennyworth

  • Slimy Thing Who
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 6000
  • QUEEN BITCH OF FLYERS
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #138 on: August 05, 2016, 07:38:25 pm »
I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

This.

That endorsement means a lot.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #139 on: August 05, 2016, 08:08:31 pm »
I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

This.

That endorsement means a lot.

Thank you! You nailed a very difficult topic.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


PoFP

  • Word-Salad Enthusiast and Terrified Meat Sack
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #140 on: August 05, 2016, 09:43:53 pm »
I heard somebody wants a Big Words done?

Also, at the risk of getting myself muddy and the pigs enjoying it: the easier argument is "it's bad for the animals, because they can't consent" which makes the human an aggressor and the animal a victim, but as folks here have pointed out there are flaws with this argument. The harder argument, but ultimately the correct one, is "it's bad for the humans, because the animals can't consent." Someone engaged in zoophilia has to assume they can interpret the animals' action or lack of action as some kind of meaningful consent or lack of nonconsent, they have to assume that lack of nonconsent is an okay starting point, and they have to assume that their actions have no negative consequences for the animal involved, if they're not willing to consider themselves rapists. And all of these attitudes are how you make rapists. And you can't compartmentalize that shit, sexuality is malleable and does not fit in boxes.

Oh, not sure how I missed this.

LMNO suggested that "Look at the world emptily and it will gladly return the favor" be big-worded, if you hadn't seen that yet. Didn't know if you were told details or just the thread name/link.


Also, you have single-handedly represented and concluded the messages we were trying to get across to Primate Dickcheese Slander, and his sidekick, Sebastard, with splendid accuracy and insight.

As always, your input is appreciated.
Listen carefully. I don't have much time, and I only have 462 characters left. I'm a scientist from Area 52 (Area 51 was used to draw attention from Area 52, where the aliens were ACTUALLY stored) who was working on neural interfacing with networked devices. In an experiment gone wrong, I accidentally uploaded my mind to the internet. In the 2 seconds I had before my mind scrambled itself with the world's network traffic, I was able to store this snippet in this random internet signature. If you're reading this, let the world know tha

Prelate Diogenes Shandor

  • Promotor Fidei
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 2162
  • Behold! The Yellow Sign of Dobbshead
    • View Profile
    • Yiffstar User Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #141 on: August 05, 2016, 10:07:42 pm »
I just have to say, I've been giving this a bit of thought (unfortunately) and something odd occurred to me.

My old dog used to try to hump about half the people that came over.  We kept trying to teach him not to, as both of us and everyone we knew didn't like him doing that, but he was definitely a horny fucker and always tried to get away with it anyway.

Now, if at some point I had learned that someone my dog was trying to hump actually let him, because that person enjoyed the experience and got off on it, I would of course be very grossed out and suspect trauma in the persons past.  I would believe the person needs help.  I agree wholeheartedly that such is bad.  That said, however, I would have a hard time considering my pet to have been raped, considering that would probably make his whole day, and he'd probably have completely forgot about it the next.

The point is moot, however, because such would damage the human.  The dog?  I'm not so sure.

Doesn't matter what the dog wants, just like it doesn't matter if a drunk person at a party wants sex. If a drunk girl comes onto you at a party, you swat that shit away like a horsefly (Not an actual physical swat, mind you. A gentle "You're drunk. We can talk, but that's as far as we're going tonight" will do).

And that's bullshit too. It's the law, but it's still bullshit. If you're somewhere that does not have a no-true-scotsman definition of consent there's no reason whatsoever for this course of action (at least no reason that isn't a strawman that automatically assumes out of hand that you automatically won't use any sort of protection in this situation, or that everybody will automatically hear about it (and that they'll care, and judge one or both partners, which is a moral failing on their end, not on the end of the people having the sex), when neither of these things might happen otherwise or that some kind of strong sexual imprinting is likely to inappropriately take place despite the negative correlation between drunkenness and memory-formation)

EDIT:
Not that it's a good idea, mind you. There's the usual, perhaps even a more than usual (but still very far from definite) chance of doing something that could result in a chronic disease or an unplanned pregnancy (unless it's homosexual sex, which can never result in an unplanned pregnancy). I just take exception to the idea that this would be much worse than (or indeed, even close to as bad as), for example, letting this person have their car keys, which could cause a car accident. The worst case scenario for a car accident is people, perhaps even many people, being crippled or killed - very few people get killed outright by sex, HIV has been reduced to a chronic illness and to my knowledge there aren't yet any superbug strains of syphilis (gonorrhea yes, but that doesn't kill you and should clear up in under a year even without treatment) - and even an accident where nobody's hurt could mean expensive car damage, expensive damage to anything they drive into, and/or hundreds of people inconvenienced by accident-related traffic. (And yes, they could also cause an accident while sober, but so too they could also get an std, unplanned pregnancy, or reputation for sluttiness while sober)
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 10:42:14 pm by Prelate Diogenes Shandor »
Praise NHGH! For the tribulation of all sentient beings.

a plague on both your houses -Mercutio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWd7nPjJH8

It is an unfortunate fact that every man who seeks to disseminate knowledge must contend not only against ignorance itself, but against false instruction as well. No sooner do we deem ourselves free from a particularly gross superstition, than we are confronted by some enemy to learning who would plunge us back into the darkness -H.P.Lovecraft

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster -Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

You are a fluke of the universe, and whether you can hear it of not the universe is laughing behind your back -Deteriorata

Don't use the email address in my profile, I lost the password years ago

trix

  • Chevy Caprice Trunk Inspector, Dead Hooker Department™
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 946
  • I GIGGLE WHEN I SHOULD CRY
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #142 on: August 05, 2016, 10:31:16 pm »
I just have to say, I've been giving this a bit of thought (unfortunately) and something odd occurred to me.

My old dog used to try to hump about half the people that came over.  We kept trying to teach him not to, as both of us and everyone we knew didn't like him doing that, but he was definitely a horny fucker and always tried to get away with it anyway.

Now, if at some point I had learned that someone my dog was trying to hump actually let him, because that person enjoyed the experience and got off on it, I would of course be very grossed out and suspect trauma in the persons past.  I would believe the person needs help.  I agree wholeheartedly that such is bad.  That said, however, I would have a hard time considering my pet to have been raped, considering that would probably make his whole day, and he'd probably have completely forgot about it the next.

The point is moot, however, because such would damage the human.  The dog?  I'm not so sure.

Doesn't matter what the dog wants, just like it doesn't matter if a drunk person at a party wants sex. If a drunk girl comes onto you at a party, you swat that shit away like a horsefly (Not an actual physical swat, mind you. A gentle "You're drunk. We can talk, but that's as far as we're going tonight" will do).

And that's bullshit too. It's the law, but it's still bullshit. If you're somewhere that does not have a no-true-scotsman definition of consent there's no reason whatsoever for this course of action (at least no reason that isn't a strawman that automatically assumes out of hand that you automatically won't use any sort of protection in this situation, or that everybody will automatically hear about it (and that they'll care, and judge one or both partners, which is a moral failing on their end, not on the end of the people having the sex), when neither of these things might happen otherwise or that some kind of strong sexual imprinting is likely to inappropriately take place despite the negative correlation between drunkenness and memory-formation)

You seriously don't understand what is wrong with having sex with a drunk person at a party who you are not intimately familiar with?

Have you never regretted drunken sex before?
There's good news tonight.  And bad news.  First, the bad news: there is no good news.  Now, the good news: you don't have to listen to the bad news.
Zen Without Zen Masters

Quote from: Cain
Gender is a social construct.  As society, we get to choose your gender.

trix

  • Chevy Caprice Trunk Inspector, Dead Hooker Department™
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 946
  • I GIGGLE WHEN I SHOULD CRY
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #143 on: August 05, 2016, 10:32:05 pm »
I mean I love playing Devil's Advocate dude but, drunken consent is not consent for a lot of very good reasons that have nothing to do with legality...
There's good news tonight.  And bad news.  First, the bad news: there is no good news.  Now, the good news: you don't have to listen to the bad news.
Zen Without Zen Masters

Quote from: Cain
Gender is a social construct.  As society, we get to choose your gender.

Prelate Diogenes Shandor

  • Promotor Fidei
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 2162
  • Behold! The Yellow Sign of Dobbshead
    • View Profile
    • Yiffstar User Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #144 on: August 05, 2016, 10:46:24 pm »
It's a bad idea to be sure, but I take exception to the fact that people treat it as if it were a worse idea than driving a car or lighting off fireworks (or indulging someone else's desire to do so) in the same state of inebriation
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 10:56:25 pm by Prelate Diogenes Shandor »
Praise NHGH! For the tribulation of all sentient beings.

a plague on both your houses -Mercutio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrTGgpWmdZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVWd7nPjJH8

It is an unfortunate fact that every man who seeks to disseminate knowledge must contend not only against ignorance itself, but against false instruction as well. No sooner do we deem ourselves free from a particularly gross superstition, than we are confronted by some enemy to learning who would plunge us back into the darkness -H.P.Lovecraft

He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster -Nietzsche

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

You are a fluke of the universe, and whether you can hear it of not the universe is laughing behind your back -Deteriorata

Don't use the email address in my profile, I lost the password years ago

Pergamos

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
  • Did it for the cookies.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #145 on: August 05, 2016, 11:01:24 pm »
Driving a car or lighting off fireworks drunk can get you maimed or killed.  Pretty sure most people consider that a worse idea than drunk sex with a stranger.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #146 on: August 06, 2016, 05:24:39 am »
Whoa. Is he seriously condoning rape?
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Pergamos

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
  • Did it for the cookies.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #147 on: August 06, 2016, 06:57:12 am »
Nope,  And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk.  Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #148 on: August 06, 2016, 02:39:21 pm »
Nope,  And I'm not saying sex with drunk people isn't rape either, just that having sex while drunk is a bad idea that is not as bad an idea as driving a car or lighting off fireworks while drunk.  Sober people shouldn't let drunk people do any of those things.

He is responding to the question of inebriation and its implications for consent, though. Those of us who agree with the law that a inebriated person cannot give consent, generally consider sex between a sober person and a drunk person rape.

When both people are drunk, those waters are muddy, but given the already fucked-up context of the conversation (whether children and animals can give consent) it seems that he is talking about one drunk person and one sober (or less-drunk) person. Which is rape.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2016, 02:41:39 pm by Mesozoic Mister Nigel »
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
« Reply #149 on: August 06, 2016, 02:41:00 pm »
Am I the only one? I can't be the only one.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”