Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: Meunster on April 20, 2016, 01:04:25 am

Title: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Meunster on April 20, 2016, 01:04:25 am
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/health/utah-governor-porn-resolution-health-hazard/

Their hearts in the right place at least.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 20, 2016, 01:25:29 am
It's like having Big Ed Meese back!   :lulz:
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on April 20, 2016, 07:27:03 am
Did not read the bill, but the article says the bill is mostly about who is now obligated to report child porn.  Which is not nearly as batty as I was expecting. 
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Meunster on April 21, 2016, 01:20:00 am
It's actually pretty progressive tbh. Porn is a health crisis because it has a lot if common themes that worm into your head. And effects how you sex and treat people.

But I mean. Instead of declaring it a crisis I'd just fund some of the making love tasteful porn. Or you know. Tell people that porn is an industry that caters to anything so see the subliminal messages in each genera and choose your poison

And as always fuck pedos.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2016, 03:15:44 am
It's actually pretty progressive tbh. Porn is a health crisis because it has a lot if common themes that worm into your head. And effects how you sex and treat people.

But I mean. Instead of declaring it a crisis I'd just fund some of the making love tasteful porn. Or you know. Tell people that porn is an industry that caters to anything so see the subliminal messages in each genera and choose your poison

And as always fuck pedos.

Leaving the pedos aside, obviously, there is no argument for criminalization of porn involving consenting adults. 

I feel that porn of ANY kind is the commidification of human beings and therefore immoral, but for one reason or another, my morals are not binding on other human beings.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on April 21, 2016, 06:47:56 am
It's actually pretty progressive tbh. Porn is a health crisis because it has a lot if common themes that worm into your head. And effects how you sex and treat people.

But I mean. Instead of declaring it a crisis I'd just fund some of the making love tasteful porn. Or you know. Tell people that porn is an industry that caters to anything so see the subliminal messages in each genera and choose your poison

And as always fuck pedos.

Leaving the pedos aside, obviously, there is no argument for criminalization of porn involving consenting adults. 

I feel that porn of ANY kind is the commidification of human beings and therefore immoral, but for one reason or another, my morals are not binding on other human beings.

That was another thing the governor said, and I am in agreement with you both.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on April 21, 2016, 06:51:57 pm
Porn is the commodification of human beings, but so is wage labor.  Porn is different in that it is he commodification of the sexual act.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2016, 08:56:26 pm
Porn is the commodification of human beings, but so is wage labor.  Porn is different in that it is he commodification of the sexual act.

Disagree.  Selling your labor is not the same as selling your person.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 21, 2016, 09:36:03 pm
I feel that porn of ANY kind is the commidification of human beings

What about hentai?

EDIT:
In any case I personally am in general pro-porn and anti-Utah. Utah is the worst state in the union.

EDIT:
Porn is the commodification of human beings, but so is wage labor.  Porn is different in that it is he commodification of the sexual act.

And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2016, 09:43:10 pm
I feel that porn of ANY kind is the commidification of human beings

What about hentai?

Liking hentai means you are a bad person and the world will be a better place when you die.

Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 21, 2016, 10:03:16 pm
Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?

And he cultural indoctrination of the people around you then. If somebody gets criticized or condemned or discriminated against for being a porn star or otherwise involved with the porn industry that's the fault of the prople discriminating against them (and more often than not ultimately the fault of Abrahamic religion), not the fault of the porn industry.

I feel that porn of ANY kind is the commidification of human beings

What about hentai?

Liking hentai means you are a bad person and the world will be a better place when you die.

What about amateur porn then? Sexting? Dick pics?

What about Erotic fiction? The only people Erika Mitchell is exploiting are her readers. :D

Edit:
And that last point goes even more so for the Marquis de Sade; his work's legally available 100% free on the internet so you can't even make a sarcastic case about the consumer being exploited.


EDIT:
What about porn catering to fetishes so out there that they no longer resemble conventional sex? Someone popping a balloon on a kids' show on boradcast tv is a-ok but that same person popping a balloon behind a paywall on the internet is suddenly a moral outrage? For reasons unrelated to a general opposition to paywalls?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2016, 10:15:09 pm
Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?

And he cultural indoctrination of the people around you then. If somebody gets criticized or condemned or discriminated against for being a porn star or otherwise involved with the porn industry that's the fault of the prople discriminating against them (and more often than not ultimately the fault of Abrahamic religion), not the fault of the porn industry.

You seem to be having trouble with the basic concept, here.  I am talking about "pornography" and you are building some sort of weird straw man involving people who work in pornography.

Quote

I feel that porn of ANY kind is the commidification of human beings

What about hentai?

Liking hentai means you are a bad person and the world will be a better place when you die.

What about amateur porn then? Sexting? Dick pics?

What about Erotic fiction? The only people Erika Mitchell is exploiting are her readers.

1.  Exhibitionism is not the same as pornography.

2.  Fiction is about people who aren't real.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 21, 2016, 10:22:29 pm
You're moving the goalposts (or would it more properly be a no true scotsman fallacy? or argument by bizarre definition?). All these things are both 1.) sexual imagery and 2.) don't clearly qualify (and in many cases clearly don't qualify) as "legitimate" art. Given these facts how in the bloody hell do they not qualify as pornography?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 21, 2016, 11:02:27 pm
You're moving the goalposts (or would it more properly be a no true scotsman fallacy? or argument by bizarre definition?). All these things are both 1.) sexual imagery and 2.) don't clearly qualify (and in many cases clearly don't qualify) as "legitimate" art. Given these facts how in the bloody hell do they not qualify as pornography?

No, I'm not.  You are simply digging in your heels and screeching.

I am done with this.  You can navel-gaze just fine on your own, kid.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Meunster on April 21, 2016, 11:57:19 pm
Restrictions on porn is kink shaming. I'm being oppressed.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on April 21, 2016, 11:57:42 pm
Porn is the commodification of human beings, but so is wage labor.  Porn is different in that it is he commodification of the sexual act.

Disagree.  Selling your labor is not the same as selling your person.

This is as true when your labor is sex as when it is any other sort of labor though.  Porn stars and other sex workers sell their labor, not their bodies.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 22, 2016, 06:19:55 pm
Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Speak English man!

Word salad was not supposed to be on the menu today.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2016, 06:21:30 pm
Porn is the commodification of human beings, but so is wage labor.  Porn is different in that it is he commodification of the sexual act.

Disagree.  Selling your labor is not the same as selling your person.

This is as true when your labor is sex as when it is any other sort of labor though.  Porn stars and other sex workers sell their labor, not their bodies.

:|
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 22, 2016, 06:21:50 pm
Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Speak English man!

Eat the peanuts outta my shit, PDS.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 22, 2016, 06:28:03 pm
Word salad and previously used peanuts; who designed this menu?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on April 24, 2016, 08:07:25 pm
Porn is the commodification of human beings, but so is wage labor.  Porn is different in that it is he commodification of the sexual act.

Disagree.  Selling your labor is not the same as selling your person.

This is as true when your labor is sex as when it is any other sort of labor though.  Porn stars and other sex workers sell their labor, not their bodies.

I think what Roger means to say is: Does a factory floor supervisor, per job description, look at your body or emotional ability to compartmentalize to determine whether or not they should keep you? Or do they look at the production statistics that your work generates? Or the way in which you handle the machine you're supposed to work, or the process you're supposed to be a part of?

In the industry, a porn star's value is determined by the look of their body, and their ability to sell their emotional integrity, privacy, and sometimes, free will. A labor job only cares about what you can produce or dedicate to production. And they would have a lawsuit if they forced you to give up your emotional integrity and privacy.

Also, due to the desperate nature of the porn industry workers, manipulation and abuse runs rampant. That, alone, should be an indicator of moral questionability.

Borderline occupations that have similar issues as porn would be beauty pageants, and acting. However, acting tends to be more independent, and the person involved has much more control over what they do. An argument against these being similar could be understood.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 24, 2016, 10:09:23 pm
In the industry, a porn star's value is determined by the look of their body, and their ability to sell their emotional integrity, privacy, and sometimes, free will. A labor job only cares about what you can produce or dedicate to production. And they would have a lawsuit if they forced you to give up your emotional integrity and privacy.

Sales, marketing, politics, law, and any position you had to suck up to a boss or interviewer to get also involve compromising one's integrity

EDIT:
I've also heard that good looking waitstaff tend to get bigger tips and good looking politicians tend to get elected more easily
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LuciferX on April 24, 2016, 10:33:08 pm
Porn is the commodification of human beings, but so is wage labor.  Porn is different in that it is he commodification of the sexual act.

Disagree.  Selling your labor is not the same as selling your person.

This is as true when your labor is sex as when it is any other sort of labor though.  Porn stars and other sex workers sell their labor, not their bodies.
Thank you for sharing these distinctions - food for thought here.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on April 24, 2016, 11:17:30 pm
In the industry, a porn star's value is determined by the look of their body, and their ability to sell their emotional integrity, privacy, and sometimes, free will. A labor job only cares about what you can produce or dedicate to production. And they would have a lawsuit if they forced you to give up your emotional integrity and privacy.

Sales, marketing, politics, law, and any position you had to suck up to a boss or interviewer to get also involve compromising one's integrity

 :?

Yeah, having manners and a positive attitude in an interview is the same thing as taking a load of cum on your face that you stated, explicitly, that you didn't want, in front of a camera, for the world to see, especially if the video was free for a Porn Tube.  :roll:

And reading up on law to exploit and, therefore, expose loopholes is the same thing as having a dick shoved into you that is artificially enlarged, without any lube, because it looks "hotter" if it seems raw and forced. :kingmeh:

And, of course, creating the next Head-On™ commercial is totally the same thing as getting your dick injected or breasts enlarged because you weren't raking in enough money for your creepy-ass boss.  :eek:

Let's also point out that it was EMOTIONAL integrity that I mentioned, not moral integrity. Moral integrity is not given up by force, or by desperation. It is given up, freely. Those who don't defend their moral integrity deserve a porn star career. The desperate kind.

Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Speak English man!

Eat the peanuts outta my shit, PDS.

Basically, this.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on April 24, 2016, 11:36:24 pm
Now hang on a second.  I agree with everything you said right up until "Moral integrity is not given up by force, or by desperation. It is given up, freely. Those who don't defend their moral integrity deserve a porn star career. The desperate kind."  With this, I respectfully disagree, and have two points to pose to you.

1.  Making any kind of defense for oneself in any way takes a lot of bravery, tons of emotional energy and fortitude, and at least one fallback plan for when things go bad while defending oneself.  Not everyone is brave, or strong, and people can easily be coerced into sacrificing their morals because they see no way around it.  That is what abuse does, which I understand is endemic to the porn industry in particular, an abuser leaves the abused feeling like there is no bolthole. 

Even not talking about porn, moral integrity is hard to maintain when you're on the verge of starving to death and so is one's kid and you'll buy food ANYWHERE so long as it's cheap, or if one is being constantly bombarded with ignorant, bigoted statements by the boss against a coworker but one doesn't speak out because they've only been there a week or so and you can't risk your job.  One may hate themselves, shopping at Wal-Mart or getting some quick, hot food from McDonalds, or staying quiet when one's integrity demands that one speak up, but at the bottom of the heap one cannot see a way around it, and so makes the sacrifice out of fear.

2.  No one deserves to be in that kind of desperate porn unless they actually want to be.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on April 25, 2016, 12:36:44 am
Now hang on a second.  I agree with everything you said right up until "Moral integrity is not given up by force, or by desperation. It is given up, freely. Those who don't defend their moral integrity deserve a porn star career. The desperate kind."  With this, I respectfully disagree, and have two points to pose to you.

1.  Making any kind of defense for oneself in any way takes a lot of bravery, tons of emotional energy and fortitude, and at least one fallback plan for when things go bad while defending oneself.  Not everyone is brave, or strong, and people can easily be coerced into sacrificing their morals because they see no way around it.  That is what abuse does, which I understand is endemic to the porn industry in particular, an abuser leaves the abused feeling like there is no bolthole. 

Even not talking about porn, moral integrity is hard to maintain when you're on the verge of starving to death and so is one's kid and you'll buy food ANYWHERE so long as it's cheap, or if one is being constantly bombarded with ignorant, bigoted statements by the boss against a coworker but one doesn't speak out because they've only been there a week or so and you can't risk your job.  One may hate themselves, shopping at Wal-Mart or getting some quick, hot food from McDonalds, or staying quiet when one's integrity demands that one speak up, but at the bottom of the heap one cannot see a way around it, and so makes the sacrifice out of fear.

2.  No one deserves to be in that kind of desperate porn unless they actually want to be.

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."

As someone who's experienced moderate abuse for long periods of time, and been born into working-class poverty, I know a thing or two about desperation, hunger, and moral folding.
Every single time I abandoned my morals, I did so with a full understanding of the implications. Abuse can be taken, and used, or it can be redirected. I have done both. And I will ALWAYS regret doing the latter. I did so, knowingly, and at the time, definitely deserved the desperate porn career. I would argue I deserved more. One could argue I still deserve it. For that very reason, I refuse to abandon my morals ever again. I've righted the wrongs with those I hurt, and I've moved on. But what I learned, was that things would have worked out better if I had done the right thing, initially. At NO POINT has doing the WRONG thing put me in a less desperate situation. I have witnessed other people make similarly terrible decisions, knowingly, and suffer the consequences. This fact holds consistently true in every situation I've been in or witnessed.

A racist boss can be subverted safely, assuming that you're implying that defense of moral integrity is an active process at all times. Choosing not to speak out against someone else's abuser is not a form of moral folding. It is possible to empathize with the abused, and build a social network for them that would pressure the abuser out, or at least give the abused the support to avoid discouragement. For every negative action, there is a stronger, opposing and positive possible reaction. Standing by the positive side can seem like more work sometimes, but after awhile of doing it, it stops requiring energy. If you can't help in one way, there is always another. I can't imagine meeting a person who would claim that doing a little was just as bad as doing nothing.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on April 25, 2016, 12:42:29 am
Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Speak English man!

Eat the peanuts outta my shit, PDS.

Basically, this.

Can you explain  what he meant? It honestly hust seems like gibberish to me. I thought I had kind of sussed it out before but it's become clear that my first interpretation was incorrect. And the continual refusals to provide an explanation seem to reinforce my new hypothesis that the award comment was just a gibberish insult rather than a well thought out retort tailored to the conversation; kind of like that stupid "jerk store" comeback from Seinfeld
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Meunster on April 25, 2016, 01:06:51 am
So is the only ethical porn to shlick to would be?

 Amateur sensual porn between two consenting adults?

Drawn porn made by one deviant to make another happy that doesn't hurt or commodities anyone. That paints no one as the oppressed or opresser. Eh, idfk aren't people already a commodity?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on April 25, 2016, 01:49:17 am
Quote
And whether that makes it better or worse is wholly a matter of opinion and of cultural indoctrination.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen:  The Privilege Award for 2016!  Give him a big hand, isn't he GREAT?

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Speak English man!

Eat the peanuts outta my shit, PDS.

Basically, this.

Can you explain  what he meant? It honestly hust seems like gibberish to me. I thought I had kind of sussed it out before but it's become clear that my first interpretation was incorrect. And the continual refusals to provide an explanation seem to reinforce my new hypothesis that the award comment was just a gibberish insult rather than a well thought out retort tailored to the conversation; kind of like that stupid "jerk store" comeback from Seinfeld

He was stating that you have been granted the magical ability to not understand the plight of others around you. It is called Privilege™. It means that you are incapable of understanding the depth of the words that exit your face. You lack the experiences to understand what "Commodification of humans" really means. Implying that the moral status of commodification of sexual acts and commodification of labor are equally dependent on "indoctrination" or "opinion" shows that you have yet to have meaningful sexual acts, and that you have yet to REALLY work a day in your life. If you had, you would understand the emotionally fragile implications of selling one's sexual acts, and also understand why selling your labor isn't even close to morally identical, regardless of your culture.

In short, he was mocking your blatant disconnectedness from the realities of the conversation. But it's ok. He's actually one of the most reasonable men I've ever met.
Regardless of what he will tell you, his view of you is not absolute, and may change over time as long as you start to talk like a biped.

I have no doubts about your intelligence. I'm sure, that with time, as long as you continue to be questioned by the people of this board, you will figure out why they pick on you. Why they picked on me. Why they pick on each other. It is not because they hate you. It is because they respect you more than anyone else ever has. They will confront you on your bullshit, where someone who doesn't care would let you wander blindly. If you feel like you're getting an undue amount of shit, think about the things you're saying. These people are undoubtedly the best people to have a disagreement with. In terms of personal growth, that is.

So is the only ethical porn to shlick to would be?

 Amateur sensual porn between two consenting adults?

Drawn porn made by one deviant to make another happy that doesn't hurt or commodities anyone. That paints no one as the oppressed or opresser. Eh, idfk aren't people already a commodity?

I say, if you wanna watch someone else have sex while you spank it, watch them in person. And if you're doing that, you might as well participate.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on April 25, 2016, 05:01:27 am

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."

This should probably be addressed in explicit terms, because while I see where you're coming from with the rest of your post, I don't see how it's okay to judge them for what may be different abilities and coping skills and thought processes.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on April 25, 2016, 07:32:07 am
As far as moral integrity goes work is filthy.  Work as a clerk at a retail store?  You are the endpoint, connection to consumer of a process that is extremely environmentally destructive and involves child labor and brutal exploitation of the impoverished in Asia.  I can't condemn you for that, the system is set up so that to survive we have to participate in the destruction of people and ecosystems.  A few people are innocent in their labor, and it is less than you think, but they can't avoid it in their consumption.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 29, 2016, 06:57:29 pm
I'm not going to argue this any further.  I have stated my case.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on April 29, 2016, 10:04:16 pm

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."

This should probably be addressed in explicit terms, because while I see where you're coming from with the rest of your post, I don't see how it's okay to judge them for what may be different abilities and coping skills and thought processes.

I hold all people to a standard that some may call The Human Bean™. This standard accounts for difference in ability, coping skills, and processes, in the same way a standardized school test accounts for difference in intelligence and the like. It ignores them completely, because in the eyes of a standard, none of those things matter. If you can relate to your fellow man, and treat them the way you want to be treated, and assume everyone else is doing the same, then you are a Human Bean™. If you do not, or cannot, then you are not. I am ok with us disagreeing on this point, as I do not see either one of us hurting anyone because of this difference in ideology. I understand and respect what you've said.

As far as moral integrity goes work is filthy.  Work as a clerk at a retail store?  You are the endpoint, connection to consumer of a process that is extremely environmentally destructive and involves child labor and brutal exploitation of the impoverished in Asia.  I can't condemn you for that, the system is set up so that to survive we have to participate in the destruction of people and ecosystems.  A few people are innocent in their labor, and it is less than you think, but they can't avoid it in their consumption.

You are fighting a Straw Man.

Why would morality reach beyond a system that is out of your control? Morality is based on choice, so why would something beyond choice be relevant to morality? You are not exploiting children in Asia. Buying the shirts they made is not an equivalent to exploiting those children in Asia or the environment.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on April 29, 2016, 10:58:11 pm

I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."

This should probably be addressed in explicit terms, because while I see where you're coming from with the rest of your post, I don't see how it's okay to judge them for what may be different abilities and coping skills and thought processes.

I hold all people to a standard that some may call The Human Bean™. This standard accounts for difference in ability, coping skills, and processes, in the same way a standardized school test accounts for difference in intelligence and the like. It ignores them completely, because in the eyes of a standard, none of those things matter. If you can relate to your fellow man, and treat them the way you want to be treated, and assume everyone else is doing the same, then you are a Human Bean™. If you do not, or cannot, then you are not. I am ok with us disagreeing on this point, as I do not see either one of us hurting anyone because of this difference in ideology. I understand and respect what you've said.

I appreciate you further explaining what you meant.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on July 29, 2016, 10:46:11 pm
Restrictions on porn is kink shaming. I'm being oppressed.

This is "generally" true!

Example: In 2005 after a guy died from being fucked by a horse, his friends were put on trial. Since there was no law against sex with horses and since there was no evidence of physical abuse, the group was only charged with trespassing. However, across the U.S. new legislation was passed criminalizing sex with animals. According to legislators, it was one of the quickest laws to pass because absolutely no one brought up counter arguments against the law. Instantly, sucking donkey dick can land you in prison.

With this in mind, it makes me curious about other types of "sexual deviancy" which can be quickly criminalized. Anything considered "weird" (outside the standard state-sanctioned sexual conduct) could be used as leverage against people.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on July 29, 2016, 10:55:24 pm
As an addendum to the previous comment, I found this fun tidbit on Wikipedia!

"Wisconsin U.S.A. (2007) - Bryan James Hathaway was convicted for having sex with a dead deer. The court case raised some interesting legal issues because the statute prohibits sex with animals, but not with carcasses. The defense raised the issue that if a dead animal was an animal, at what point would it cease to be an animal?"
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 29, 2016, 11:11:52 pm
Laws like that disgust me. They're no better than the ones that were formerly used to harass and oppress homosexuals
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on July 29, 2016, 11:39:01 pm
The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.  I know the law in WA used to be against sex with a resisting animal.  I think that was changed after the fellow died of an overdose of horse dick.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Salty on July 30, 2016, 12:16:37 am
 
Laws like that disgust me. They're no better than the ones that were formerly used to harass and oppress homosexuals

:spag2:

Telling you "No. No, that's idiotic" every time you need to be told that would be a full-time job.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 30, 2016, 02:36:55 am
The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on July 30, 2016, 03:54:28 am
The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

You want to prohibit predation too?  Rape is bad but murder is worse...
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on July 30, 2016, 04:09:45 am
With this in mind, it makes me curious about other types of "sexual deviancy" which can be quickly criminalized. Anything considered "weird" (outside the standard state-sanctioned sexual conduct) could be used as leverage against people.

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.  I know the law in WA used to be against sex with a resisting animal.  I think that was changed after the fellow died of an overdose of horse dick.


You are right, animals cannot grant or withhold consent (I wrote briefly on the double standard of Zoophilia and Industrial meat in another thread, please check it out if you can).

But the general point I was making for this topic is that it is too easy to target a paraphilia and outlaw it - even if consent is involved. Doesn't Great Britain have a law which bans all types of necrophilic pornography, including fantasy necrophilia (like ridiculous films of people mating with sexy bodies covered in fake blood)?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on July 30, 2016, 04:40:41 am
The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

So, to you, humans are just animals, and nothing else.

That's pretty bleak.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 30, 2016, 04:56:17 am
With this in mind, it makes me curious about other types of "sexual deviancy" which can be quickly criminalized. Anything considered "weird" (outside the standard state-sanctioned sexual conduct) could be used as leverage against people.

The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.  I know the law in WA used to be against sex with a resisting animal.  I think that was changed after the fellow died of an overdose of horse dick.


You are right, animals cannot grant or withhold consent (I wrote briefly on the double standard of Zoophilia and Industrial meat in another thread, please check it out if you can).

But the general point I was making for this topic is that it is too easy to target a paraphilia and outlaw it - even if consent is involved. Doesn't Great Britain have a law which bans all types of necrophilic pornography, including fantasy necrophilia (like ridiculous films of people mating with sexy bodies covered in fake blood)?

That's why I like America. At least we still have a modicum of free speech, in contrast to many other places, even in the so-called "free world" (England and Austrailia come to mind)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 30, 2016, 06:13:15 am
The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

So, to you, humans are just animals, and nothing else.

That's pretty bleak.

I'm a cosmicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism#Principles_of_cosmicism)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 30, 2016, 11:57:26 pm
The difference, at least as far as a live animal is concerned, is that an animal can't legally consent.

But by that logic it should also be prohibited for an animal to have sex with another animal.

So, to you, humans are just animals, and nothing else.

That's pretty bleak.

I'm a cosmicist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmicism#Principles_of_cosmicism)

(https://i.imgflip.com/187ln5.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 01:01:02 am
Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 01:20:02 am
Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 01:42:11 am
I don't know. Maybe I'm blowing up the context, or assuming one that wasn't there.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 03:12:37 am
Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

But is that something intrinsic to humans? Do you think that other animals could have evolved to fill this niche, or that others might in the future?

Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 04:20:17 am
Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

But is that something intrinsic to humans? Do you think that other animals could have evolved to fill this niche, or that others might in the future?

Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.

I imagine that other beings may come along that will think that our form of consciousness is limited, and that it may be silly to hold us responsible for our silly monkey ways. In which case, if they are that far ahead of us in consciousness, they probably wouldn't have the mind to even bother with us.

After some thought, I believe the environment of the system in question is highly relevant to this discussion. For example, in the jungle, where a lion or tiger is most fit, the decisions we'd make would probably appear to be maximum stoopid. I mean, the predators most fit in their environment tend to toy with their prey when they're bored. This is comparable to us when we have rodeos or dog fights.

I would make an argument that it is best to hold an animal responsible for its actions that are taken in their matched environment. But it is only viable to change the behavior of an animal by taking them out of their matched environment, as that is when they are vulnerable, but also more susceptible to persuasion. When you want to change your behavior, it's usually best to take yourself out of your comfort zone, especially when it involves unlearning.

Free Will seems, in the context of this discussion, to be relative. We are animals. But our level of decision-making is quite complex. Although our environments change, I believe some decisions should be held against us regardless of the environment.

Every decision has a range of context. I believe that in the safety of our towns, the decision to kill someone you see as a general moderate danger to your family as something that should be held against you (This depends on where you live.). Whereas, the decision to do so if you are in a small group of people out in the woods, alone, on a trip, to be something that you shouldn't have held against you. There is no community power in the lonely environment of the woods to protect people, and so they are expected to protect themselves. This desperation is understandable. But it is not acceptable in the protection of a community, unless this person is putting you in immediate danger.

The complexity of being able to live in multiple environments and make various decisions based on both want and need, makes it hard to isolate the difference between free will and forced behavior. Whereas, the simplicity of animal instinct and thought in other animals, and the limitations of their abilities to adapt to changing environments makes most of their behavior forced, and hardly capable of being considered free will.

And I would argue that in the cosmic context of decisions, we are mostly performing forced behavior that is miniscule. The thing is, we have the ability to perform free will on a cosmic scale. We just haven't looked outward into the skies in a long time. Our decisions are limited by our context of thought, while other animals have their thought limited fundamentally, on a neurophysiological level. Would you at least agree with that?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on July 31, 2016, 04:36:38 am

Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.


Speaking of animals, free will, and consent - it seems to be common to talk about the responsibilities of the oppressor. As if the oppressor should be more mindful of the thing it oppresses...

but what are the responsibility of things that are being dominated? And, what forms of consent do our biological bodies give that our consciousness do not? Sure, the zebra does not want to be killed by the lion, but the cells of the zebra evolved in symbiosis the cells of the lion. Essentially, the zebra's cellular memory has given Consent to Feed. Likewise, the human has evolved to manipulate organisms around it - so the cells of that which we influence have already primordially consented, even though the consciousnesses may not have consented.

To go bring it back to the discussion of pornography; the human has evolved to fap at anything which may arouse them, and the government has evolved to limit the kinds of socially acceptable arousals. It is a symbiosis, and we are trapped within the sociological-sexual evolution.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 05:09:01 am
You know, right now I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile. Obviously one of you is stupider than the other, so I'll try to dignify Fernando Poo with an answer tomorrow when I'm less filled with contempt.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with a couple of things to think about.

What is "fundamentally different"?

Are children fundamentally different from adults?

Are horses fundamentally different from badgers?


Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 31, 2016, 05:39:54 am
They're all self-assembling blobs of hydrocarbons
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on July 31, 2016, 07:23:36 am
Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Junkenstein on July 31, 2016, 10:37:13 am
Quote
I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile

Newsfeed.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 03:47:54 pm
You know, right now I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile. Obviously one of you is stupider than the other, so I'll try to dignify Fernando Poo with an answer tomorrow when I'm less filled with contempt.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with a couple of things to think about.

What is "fundamentally different"?

Are children fundamentally different from adults?

Are horses fundamentally different from badgers?

Please keep in mind that my initial posts that contain most of the content are intended to be whittled down to viable ideas. I intentionally leave out certain amounts of processing so as not to remove something useful that I overlooked. Most of what I say in these posts are my almost immediate raw thoughts, and often end up very first-drafty, and sometimes don't have morality included. There's no need for contempt or hate when it comes to these discussions. If I say something stupid, mock it, and have fun. That's what most of the regulars come here for in terms of a discussion, right?

You can compare my discussion method to throwing shit at the wall as hard as you can until some corn falls out. Laugh at the shit, keep the corn. I mean, I thought this was the basics.

Either way, I appreciate the dignification.



I would argue that "fundamentally different," in this context, would imply that the complexity, creativity, and potential for stream of thought is so entirely disparate, that it would be silly to look at the two things as comparable platforms. It is silly to hold an army of ants responsible for covering your floor if you're constantly dropping food in a poorly insulated and sealed house or building. Anyone would probably kill them all, because that is the most convenient option, and they largely don't have an effect on us. But getting upset at them is silly, as we all know that this is how you get ants. Our fault, not theirs.

If we consider that the fundamentals of how an organism thinks, feels, and changes are rooted in the sizes or existence of certain brain structures, you can somewhat accurately isolate what organisms tend to be capable of specific decisions, changes, and feelings. If my memory serves to be correct, you have a degree (advanced?) in psychology. If not, you're probably more studied up on it anyways. It'd probably be insulting to attempt to explain where I'm going with this with such a limited background. I think you can extrapolate this part. Also worth noting, I'm sure they discovered somewhat recently that the ratio of brain mass to body mass is a huge determining factor when it comes to intelligence and problem solving skills. This makes animals like birds VERY good at problem solving, but they are very simple organisms in general, and would not have a very complex thought. To consider their actions to be prefaced by "decisions" would be a bit of an exaggeration, imo.



I would consider a NEW environment to be one that is not exactly "matched" or deeply compatible. Therefore, I see decisions that children make to be more impulsive and exploratory, as they should be. Children are by no means fundamentally different from adults, as I've witnessed children of all ages capable of very complex thoughts and decisions. However, the unusually spongy/absorbent nature of a child's mind is something that should be taken into account. I'm not saying they shouldn't be scolded for hurtful decisions. I'm saying the scolding in that case should be equally distributed to the parents, or those responsible for the child's environment.


I haven't done much research into the neurological difference between a horse and a badger, but I assume your point here is: "Should we see humans as the only ones that are different, fundamentally? Or are other animals different from each other in their own ways?"

If this is the case, I would argue that animals vary in complexity and potential, so I would argue there are many milestones and levels among the other animals. Hell, one could argue there are even differences between humans, if you're accounting for deviant mental deficiencies - The ones that are detrimental neurological factors.

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

Well, we don't like the people that hold them accountable and execute them for it. Those people tend to be the same people who made them fight. I hope you weren't trying to imply that I would support that?

Mostly just unsure of where this was going. Sorry if I seem unusually defensive.


Do you think it's ever appropriate to hold another animal responsible for its actions, or to try to teach them to modify their behavior?

Being an animal doesn't negate free will.


Speaking of animals, free will, and consent - it seems to be common to talk about the responsibilities of the oppressor. As if the oppressor should be more mindful of the thing it oppresses...

but what are the responsibility of things that are being dominated? And, what forms of consent do our biological bodies give that our consciousness do not? Sure, the zebra does not want to be killed by the lion, but the cells of the zebra evolved in symbiosis the cells of the lion. Essentially, the zebra's cellular memory has given Consent to Feed. Likewise, the human has evolved to manipulate organisms around it - so the cells of that which we influence have already primordially consented, even though the consciousnesses may not have consented.

To go bring it back to the discussion of pornography; the human has evolved to fap at anything which may arouse them, and the government has evolved to limit the kinds of socially acceptable arousals. It is a symbiosis, and we are trapped within the sociological-sexual evolution.


What the actual fuck?  :lulz:

The government didn't have to evolve to limit acceptable arousals. Most people understand that being accepting of sexual arousal from kids, or non-consenting animals, leads to the abuse thereof.

You, apparently, have no regard for that fact, which makes you a disgusting freak.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on July 31, 2016, 05:13:13 pm

Speaking of animals, free will, and consent - it seems to be common to talk about the responsibilities of the oppressor. As if the oppressor should be more mindful of the thing it oppresses...

but what are the responsibility of things that are being dominated? And, what forms of consent do our biological bodies give that our consciousness do not? Sure, the zebra does not want to be killed by the lion, but the cells of the zebra evolved in symbiosis the cells of the lion. Essentially, the zebra's cellular memory has given Consent to Feed. Likewise, the human has evolved to manipulate organisms around it - so the cells of that which we influence have already primordially consented, even though the consciousnesses may not have consented.

To go bring it back to the discussion of pornography; the human has evolved to fap at anything which may arouse them, and the government has evolved to limit the kinds of socially acceptable arousals. It is a symbiosis, and we are trapped within the sociological-sexual evolution.


What the actual fuck?  :lulz:

The government didn't have to evolve to limit acceptable arousals. Most people understand that being accepting of sexual arousal from kids, or non-consenting animals, leads to the abuse thereof.

You, apparently, have no regard for that fact, which makes you a disgusting freak.  :lulz:


I think Prelate Diogenes Shandor said it quite succinctly:

They're all self-assembling blobs of hydrocarbons

The universe has allowed for the possibility of organisms to influence and manipulate other organisms, whether by digesting them, inseminating them, etc. - from molecular to macro. I'm afraid if I apply a hierarchy of morality upon a nihilistic biology, I'm gonna slip on a banana peel.

I believe governments have evolved to limit arousals. Especially the U.S. government, which has a Christian foundation. Remember that Puritans established many of the original colonies, and they were obsessed with sexual repression whose legacy continues to this day.

Dare I say, governments are systems which impose a set of values as "impartial". Those values are constructed by the larger culture and a few wealthy inidividuals. Utah is a huge Latter-Day Saint state, no wonder they passed such a law.   
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 06:11:37 pm
I didn't say that they don't limit arousals. I said they didn't have to evolve to do so. It's not very surprising that a system made up of people who are disgusted by sexual abuse would be biased against sexual abuse.


The universe has allowed for the possibility of organisms to influence and manipulate other organisms, whether by digesting them, inseminating them, etc. - from molecular to macro. I'm afraid if I apply a hierarchy of morality upon a nihilistic biology, I'm gonna slip on a banana peel.
 

No, Nihilists are the ones that think it's pointless to go out of their way to not step on the banana peel, and so they fall on their asses over and over again.

Biology is not Nihilistic. It is doing all the work, and making your existence possible. It gave you the ability to create meaning, and you chose to waste that on an ideology that is based on moral laziness. You're spineless inability to stand up for a set of moral principles is caused by cowardice. Ordinarily, I would attribute this to tween arrogance. But, you said you were already out of college in your Introduction, which means you're probably old enough to know better. As someone who went through your problem as a phase, I assure you that it is due to an ego the size of Texas, and a habit of compartmentalization at the first sign of a threat to your belief, and magical thinking. You assume that because your ideology explains and accounts for all, that it is infallible. You are wrong. You are not special. You are not a philosopher (No reason why you'd want to be one). We have seen plenty like you, and we are not impressed.

The world doesn't care about you, and it has nothing to do with Nihilism. It has to do with the fact that you can't accept that sexual abuse and manipulation are fucking wrong.

So go slip on a fucking banana peel.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 06:16:10 pm
Fernando, I'm going to be blunt with you. I think that intellectually speaking, you have potential, but, much like The Wizard Joseph, you are still in the exploratory stage where your thinking is cluttered with a lot of experimental ideas and stuff you're ultimately going to learn more about and realize was naive, or think through and discard. I find all the clutter intensely annoying, and I don't feel like being the person to help you pare it back to just the meaningful discourse, so I probably won't engage with you much until you get there.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 06:18:42 pm
And the new guy's entire argument is essentially a scaffolding for the idea that rape couldn't happen if on some level the victim didn't want it. He's trying to get people to agree with his attempts at rationalizing the justification for zoophilia and pedophilia. In this case he's claiming that the desire is evolutionary, but it's fundamentally the exact same bullshit argument as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 06:29:35 pm
Quote
I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile

Newsfeed.

 :lulz:
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 06:52:31 pm
Fernando, I'm going to be blunt with you. I think that intellectually speaking, you have potential, but, much like The Wizard Joseph, you are still in the exploratory stage where your thinking is cluttered with a lot of experimental ideas and stuff you're ultimately going to learn more about and realize was naive, or think through and discard. I find all the clutter intensely annoying, and I don't feel like being the person to help you pare it back to just the meaningful discourse, so I probably won't engage with you much until you get there.

Agreed, and understandable. It is a process, and that is the whole reason why I do this. I understand if you find the clutter to be too taxing. I'm probably more annoyed by it than you are.

Also, this is the first time I've written anything close to coherent in the last year or so, as I've not been doing anything but work and drive. I've not had the time to grow like I used to, mentally. So, now I've, in a way, started back at square 1.

And the new guy's entire argument is essentially a scaffolding for the idea that rape couldn't happen if on some level the victim didn't want it. He's trying to get people to agree with his attempts at rationalizing the justification for zoophilia and pedophilia. In this case he's claiming that the desire is evolutionary, but it's fundamentally the exact same bullshit argument as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc

If anyone had ever asked me, before, what an "Anarchist Monk" would look like, I wouldn't have thought of this guy. However, after some thought, it's so fitting. (Don't know if you read his introduction)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on July 31, 2016, 07:02:00 pm
I didn't say that they don't limit arousals. I said they didn't have to evolve to do so. It's not very surprising that a system made up of people who are disgusted by sexual abuse would be biased against sexual abuse.


The universe has allowed for the possibility of organisms to influence and manipulate other organisms, whether by digesting them, inseminating them, etc. - from molecular to macro. I'm afraid if I apply a hierarchy of morality upon a nihilistic biology, I'm gonna slip on a banana peel.
 

No, Nihilists are the ones that think it's pointless to go out of their way to not step on the banana peel, and so they fall on their asses over and over again.

Biology is not Nihilistic. It is doing all the work, and making your existence possible. It gave you the ability to create meaning, and you chose to waste that on an ideology that is based on moral laziness. You're spineless inability to stand up for a set of moral principles is caused by cowardice. Ordinarily, I would attribute this to tween arrogance. But, you said you were already out of college in your Introduction, which means you're probably old enough to know better. As someone who went through your problem as a phase, I assure you that it is due to an ego the size of Texas, and a habit of compartmentalization at the first sign of a threat to your belief, and magical thinking. You assume that because your ideology explains and accounts for all, that it is infallible. You are wrong. You are not special. You are not a philosopher (No reason why you'd want to be one). We have seen plenty like you, and we are not impressed.

The world doesn't care about you, and it has nothing to do with Nihilism. It has to do with the fact that you can't accept that sexual abuse and manipulation are fucking wrong.

So go slip on a fucking banana peel.

I'll take your criticism, it's ok. Yes, you are right, I have slipped on many banana peels and will continue to do so. And yes, It's true that every type of viewpoint is both true and false and everything in between.

But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer. My view point is going to be very wrong to some people, but I do enjoy trying to think about issues in a different way than mainstream intellectuals.

(And in response to Mesozoic Mister Nigel, personally, I do not condone non-consenting sex/abuse between two people/animals - but I am interested in exploring the crevices of why these things are considered ok/bad)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on July 31, 2016, 07:28:19 pm
Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

He's got you there
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 07:36:21 pm
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer. My view point is going to be very wrong to some people, but I do enjoy trying to think about issues in a different way than mainstream intellectuals.

   :herewego:

Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

He's got you there

 :?

I'm saying the justice system shouldn't hold dogs accountable for dog fighting. Did Pergamos mean to say that the justice system executes dogs for dog fighting? Or that the dog fighters execute them for dog fighting? Because I know the latter is definitely true. The former doesn't make any goddamn sense.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 08:43:16 pm
:?

I'm saying the justice system shouldn't hold dogs accountable for dog fighting. Did Pergamos mean to say that the justice system executes dogs for dog fighting? Or that the dog fighters execute them for dog fighting? Because I know the latter is definitely true. The former doesn't make any goddamn sense.

You've seriously never heard of owners being forced by law to put their dog to sleep because it kept mauling other dogs?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 08:52:03 pm
Or otherwise held accountable for their actions, if not by a court of law, then by the higher authority which is the animal whose homes they live in? Never heard of a dog scolded or punished for stealing food or peeing on the furniture?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on July 31, 2016, 09:05:13 pm
Maybe I should return to my earlier question. What is "fundamentally different"?

What, to you, constitutes a fundamental difference?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has to the same degree?

Is it a unique set of qualities and capacities that no other animal has the same permutations of?

Is it some other condition which you can define?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on July 31, 2016, 09:40:32 pm


Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

Well, we don't like the people that hold them accountable and execute them for it. Those people tend to be the same people who made them fight. I hope you weren't trying to imply that I would support that?

Mostly just unsure of where this was going. Sorry if I seem unusually defensive.



No,  dogfighting trainers certainly kill dogs, but it is not out of any sort of accountability.  The people who kill dogs for being fighting dogs are called dogcatchers, they work for the government and we generally don't hate them because they are doing what needs to be done.  Can't have  vicious dog roaming about.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on July 31, 2016, 11:04:22 pm
:?

I'm saying the justice system shouldn't hold dogs accountable for dog fighting. Did Pergamos mean to say that the justice system executes dogs for dog fighting? Or that the dog fighters execute them for dog fighting? Because I know the latter is definitely true. The former doesn't make any goddamn sense.

You've seriously never heard of owners being forced by law to put their dog to sleep because it kept mauling other dogs?

Not until now, honestly. But that seems like a preventative measure, not a form of accountability. It is unfortunate, but it seems to be a necessity.

Or otherwise held accountable for their actions, if not by a court of law, then by the higher authority which is the animal whose homes they live in? Never heard of a dog scolded or punished for stealing food or peeing on the furniture?

You can hold a dog responsible for those things to the same extent that the dogs themselves can think about the action. If they stole food, that means they weren't trained. They were simply hungry, and saw an opportunity to eat. If they peed on the floor, then they were either not given a chance to relieve themselves outside, or they were not trained to do so. Behavioral modifications can be made by holding the dog accountable for the simple need it has to have to relieve itself or to eat. You are adapting the dog to its new environment as that is not their natural state.

Do you see dog training as complex enough to be considered a form of accountability?

Maybe I should return to my earlier question. What is "fundamentally different"?

What, to you, constitutes a fundamental difference?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has?

Is it a quality or capacity no other animal has to the same degree?

Is it a unique set of qualities and capacities that no other animal has the same permutations of?

Is it some other condition which you can define?

Comparing humans to all the other animals, I would probably argue it is the first one that defines the fundamental difference, and maybe partially the second option in some cases. But that quality or capacity is going to be mostly related to that thing that grants us our consciousness and self-awareness. You can't have responsibility without those things. And of the animals that do have those things that aren't humans, there are few that have it to the degree to be able to be held accountable for their actions in most environments that include humans.

No,  dogfighting trainers certainly kill dogs, but it is not out of any sort of accountability.  The people who kill dogs for being fighting dogs are called dogcatchers, they work for the government and we generally don't hate them because they are doing what needs to be done.  Can't have  vicious dog roaming about.

Fair enough. But my point is that humans were responsible for the viciousness of those dogs, and should be punished for it. The killing of dogs that are dangerous is incredibly unfortunate. But as you said, it has to be done. More animals shouldn't have to suffer because some piece of shit ruined a dog's life.



My overall point in this whole discussion is that humans, having the greater impact and potential, should have the most responsibility/accountability of all other animals. They are capable of greatness that no other animal could possibly achieve, and so they should be held to a certain standard of behavior, environment and genetics permitting. And that general responsibility for everything around humans makes them different from other animals.


EDIT: Better?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 01, 2016, 02:34:39 am
Jesus fuck, can you at least try to be concise? Think about what you want to say, then use the fewest words possible to say it in the clearest manner possible. Just throw away all those extra words. They're just garbage.

I'll filter through this lunchmeat salad tomorrow if I remember, and try to pick out any actual relevant nuggets that bear responding to.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 01, 2016, 02:37:34 am
Also, if you think of questions while you're typing, take a minute to sit back and ask yourself, "can I come up with an answer to this on my own?" and if the answer to that is yes, don't ask the question.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 01, 2016, 02:46:14 am

I'll filter through this lunchmeat salad tomorrow if I remember, and try to pick out any actual relevant nuggets that bear responding to.

Don't bother. I'll edit for efficiency tomorrow afternoon.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 01, 2016, 02:55:58 am

I'll filter through this lunchmeat salad tomorrow if I remember, and try to pick out any actual relevant nuggets that bear responding to.

Don't bother. I'll edit for efficiency tomorrow afternoon.

Thank you. I'll look for it.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 01, 2016, 04:02:45 am
Humans ARE just animals. The type of animals we call Homo sapiens. Other species may have, or reach, the type of intelligence we have. I absolutely do not buy into that "God breathed life into us and that makes us super special and different from all the others" crap. I don't even understand why anyone would WANT to feel like humans are fundamentally different from all the other animals; what a bleak, lonely, alienated existence that would be.

Although, now that I think about it like that, it kind of explains a lot about Western civilization.

I find it hard to hold people responsible for their actions if I see them as the same kind of animal as every other animal.

We have the ability to make or break the world, and everything in it. We're not holy. We have more responsibility than other animals, and should. Every member of this board that's worth a damn has demonstrated that responsibility in one way or another.

I mean, obviously we shouldn't start holding dogs accountable for dog fighting. They did the fighting, but we had the complexity and BADWRONG in us to force them to do it. We can choose to be better than other animals, or we can choose to be lower than other animals.

I mean, if you treat something or someone as if they have more responsibility than another, that is a fundamental difference, is it not?

Dogs are held accountable for dog fighting every day.  They are usually executed for it.

He's got you there

 :?

I'm saying the justice system shouldn't hold dogs accountable for dog fighting. Did Pergamos mean to say that the justice system executes dogs for dog fighting? Or that the dog fighters execute them for dog fighting? Because I know the latter is definitely true. The former doesn't make any goddamn sense.

They're generally (or at least often) deemed unfit as pets (etc.) and put down after they get siezed when dog-fighting ring gets broken up by the cops

I didn't say that they don't limit arousals. I said they didn't have to evolve to do so. It's not very surprising that a system made up of people who are disgusted by sexual abuse would be biased against sexual abuse.


The universe has allowed for the possibility of organisms to influence and manipulate other organisms, whether by digesting them, inseminating them, etc. - from molecular to macro. I'm afraid if I apply a hierarchy of morality upon a nihilistic biology, I'm gonna slip on a banana peel.
 

No, Nihilists are the ones that think it's pointless to go out of their way to not step on the banana peel, and so they fall on their asses over and over again.

Biology is not Nihilistic. It is doing all the work, and making your existence possible. It gave you the ability to create meaning, and you chose to waste that on an ideology that is based on moral laziness. You're spineless inability to stand up for a set of moral principles is caused by cowardice. Ordinarily, I would attribute this to tween arrogance. But, you said you were already out of college in your Introduction, which means you're probably old enough to know better. As someone who went through your problem as a phase, I assure you that it is due to an ego the size of Texas, and a habit of compartmentalization at the first sign of a threat to your belief, and magical thinking. You assume that because your ideology explains and accounts for all, that it is infallible. You are wrong. You are not special. You are not a philosopher (No reason why you'd want to be one). We have seen plenty like you, and we are not impressed.

The world doesn't care about you, and it has nothing to do with Nihilism. It has to do with the fact that you can't accept that sexual abuse and manipulation are fucking wrong.

So go slip on a fucking banana peel.

I'll take your criticism, it's ok. Yes, you are right, I have slipped on many banana peels and will continue to do so. And yes, It's true that every type of viewpoint is both true and false and everything in between.

But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.

It is. That's why my custom title is Devil's Advocate
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 01, 2016, 04:17:09 am
Quote
I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile

Newsfeed.

Done and done.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on August 01, 2016, 04:31:57 am
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 01, 2016, 05:07:38 am
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.

Yeah.  Exactly that.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on August 01, 2016, 05:08:06 am
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.

 :oops: you're right! I really shouldn't be defending my position based on an arbitrary assumption I have about "Discordianism"

I choose to stand ignorantly by my position and say that our bodies are actually an assemblage of cells, living and breathing together - I, a walking sack of blood, am a conglomerate of little creatures evolved over eons to symbiotically co-habitate. My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch. 
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 01, 2016, 05:10:37 am
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.

 :oops: you're right! I really shouldn't be defending my position based on an arbitrary assumption I have about "Discordianism"

I choose to stand ignorantly by my position and say that our bodies are actually an assemblage of cells, living and breathing together - I, a walking sack of blood, am a conglomerate of little creatures evolved over eons to symbiotically co-habitate. My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

I reject that on account of Papa Hemmingway and Rudyard Kipling.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 01, 2016, 06:23:17 am
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

I wouldn't say "randomly". Cells and organelles, small though they may be, are still much larger than the scale at which physics becomes largely non-deterministic. Furthermore evolution has its patterns and courses that it follows, much like the weather and the movements of the stars and planets, and any number of meaningless natural phenomena. It is arbitrary but not necessarily "random".
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on August 01, 2016, 07:41:55 pm
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.

 :oops: you're right! I really shouldn't be defending my position based on an arbitrary assumption I have about "Discordianism"

Better.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 01, 2016, 11:39:59 pm
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

Yeah, the cells don't care. Because they don't have feelings. But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person. And when that happens, other "squirming towers of molecular animals" will beat you to a pulp with bar stools, or put you in the fucking ground if you actually hurt someone.

As someone who's known many people to go down that road and live that life, and stray temporarily down that path myself, I assure you it is a mistake. And let me explain why that is, in a morally blank manner:

You go down that path, you die in prison, or worse. Pretend to be some emotionless observer-being of logic all you want, it doesn't make a difference to people. Your logic will die with you, bloody and alone. Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 12:09:27 am
(http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/phoenix-wright-objection.jpg)

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 12:21:41 am
Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

Oh wait, I guess you're right, it is illogical to make an argument based on the assumption that someone wants to live and feel good about themselves. Why do I even bother?  :roll:
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 12:56:46 am
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

Oh wait, I guess you're right, it is illogical to make an argument based on the assumption that someone wants to live and feel good about themselves. Why do I even bother?

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it morally wrong.

For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong?After all, it's dangerous and illogical; You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 01:07:32 am
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

Also, last I checked, people who help other people feel better about themselves, and live happier lives, even if they are shorter in situations like that.

EDIT: Firefighters have higher suicide rates due to the stressors involved. However, it is not illogical or wrong to attempt to keep others alive to progress society, or even individual lives.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 01:09:18 am
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 01:11:51 am
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 01:21:54 am
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

What if the animal clearly wants it, or at least clearly doesn't not want it?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Freeky on August 02, 2016, 01:36:02 am
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

What if the animal clearly wants it
\

:kingmeh:
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Junkenstein on August 02, 2016, 02:13:00 am
Quote
I hate both of you because your conversation is both navel-gazing and puerile

Newsfeed.

Done and done.

Appreciated. Continues to be accurate assessment of thread. Improvements may occur with a dose of 'shut up' followed by thought. Outlook not likely.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 02:41:39 am
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

What if the animal clearly wants it
\

:kingmeh:

They don't care where the peanutbutter is. Why should they?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on August 02, 2016, 02:46:01 am
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

I wouldn't say "randomly". Cells and organelles, small though they may be, are still much larger than the scale at which physics becomes largely non-deterministic. Furthermore evolution has its patterns and courses that it follows, much like the weather and the movements of the stars and planets, and any number of meaningless natural phenomena. It is arbitrary but not necessarily "random".

Ah, yes! A world of complex biological patterning. I should always be more mindful of that. Arbitrary beauty :D
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on August 02, 2016, 02:54:43 am

Quote
Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

Mr. Fernando Poo - do you eat meat? And if so, who makes your meat?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 11:45:14 am
Yeah, I'm not continuing a conversation with someone who can't see the difference between the circle of life and zoophilia.

Or with someone who doesn't understand that animals aren't capable of active consent with humans.

They don't pay me enough for shit like this.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 01:45:38 pm
The point is that anything else you do to them is by definition going to be less harmful than actually killing them.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2016, 05:14:13 pm
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

What if the animal clearly wants it, or at least clearly doesn't not want it?

Explain to me how an animal can give affirmative consent?

No, wait, don't.  I have had all the brain damage I can manage, and this entire thread is a toolbox.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 02, 2016, 05:40:24 pm
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

Yeah, the cells don't care. Because they don't have feelings. But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person. And when that happens, other "squirming towers of molecular animals" will beat you to a pulp with bar stools, or put you in the fucking ground if you actually hurt someone.

As someone who's known many people to go down that road and live that life, and stray temporarily down that path myself, I assure you it is a mistake. And let me explain why that is, in a morally blank manner:

You go down that path, you die in prison, or worse. Pretend to be some emotionless observer-being of logic all you want, it doesn't make a difference to people. Your logic will die with you, bloody and alone. Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.

This is a great example of clarity of thought and conciseness of writing. Laying the smack down; boom. Well done.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 02, 2016, 05:43:03 pm
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

What if the animal clearly wants it, or at least clearly doesn't not want it?

I used to think that you were just young and could learn, but it's been years without change and at this point it is pretty clear that you're just hopelessly stupid.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 06:28:29 pm
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

Yeah, the cells don't care. Because they don't have feelings. But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person. And when that happens, other "squirming towers of molecular animals" will beat you to a pulp with bar stools, or put you in the fucking ground if you actually hurt someone.

As someone who's known many people to go down that road and live that life, and stray temporarily down that path myself, I assure you it is a mistake. And let me explain why that is, in a morally blank manner:

You go down that path, you die in prison, or worse. Pretend to be some emotionless observer-being of logic all you want, it doesn't make a difference to people. Your logic will die with you, bloody and alone. Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.

This is a great example of clarity of thought and conciseness of writing. Laying the smack down; boom. Well done.

Thank you. It pains me to see people stray down that path so far without realizing the social/mental damage it's doing to them. It is measurable, and debilitating.

It's been a few years now, and the damage it did to me is still far from being undone. Thankfully I was anti-social at the time, and I was unlikely to damage anyone else.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 02, 2016, 06:36:17 pm
Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.


If not previous newsfeed, NEWSFEED.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2016, 06:55:32 pm
Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.


If not previous newsfeed, NEWSFEED.

I live to serve.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 06:58:46 pm
 :thanks: I am flattered
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 02, 2016, 07:00:10 pm
:thanks: I am flattered

I'd even submit that to QG for Big Words.  I'd even buy a T shirt.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 07:06:51 pm
:thanks: I am flattered

I'd even submit that to QG for Big Words.  I'd even buy a T shirt.

Thank you! That's encouraging. I used to love writing, and now I have a nudge to start again. Because I felt like content like the above was a daily occurrence. Not to sound pretentious.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 02, 2016, 07:18:30 pm
Sometimes, it's not the content, it's the distillation.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 07:21:00 pm
Sometimes, it's not the content, it's the distillation.

Good point. I will remember that.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 02, 2016, 07:59:51 pm
Sometimes, it's not the content, it's the distillation.

Bingo.

I have always been able to write prolifically. Being able to distill 3 pages of process into one paragraph of hard, spare clarity is much, much harder. Sometimes it's important to include the process, as in when walking an audience through the logical steps to your conclusion. Other times, the process is just background noise that can either be cut entirely, or reduced to scaffolding for the conclusion. There is a great book called "Everything's an Argument" that I recommend for learning how to include effective elements of your process, without just dumping a bunch of what is essentially mental-byproduct clutter on your readers.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 08:24:39 pm
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

What if the animal clearly wants it, or at least clearly doesn't not want it?

I used to think that you were just young and could learn, but it's been years without change and at this point it is pretty clear that you're just hopelessly stupid.

Why should the animal care where the peanutbutter it's licking is?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2016, 09:38:01 pm
But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person.

This is an appeal to disgust and guilt, as well as a non-sequitur as I do not recall us discussing sexual violence, just pornography and zoophiloa and farm porn.

Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences

It's illogical to do something that makes you hurt and or die because you're afraid.

It may be dangerous and therefore illogical but that doesn't make it wrong. For example, Is being a volunteer firefighter morally wrong? It's illogical. You're exposing yourself to danger and not getting paid fot it

Last I checked, rape is sexual violence.

I don't recall rape being mentioned in the conversation

So you don't see sex with non-consenting animals as rape. Good to know.

What if the animal clearly wants it, or at least clearly doesn't not want it?

I used to think that you were just young and could learn, but it's been years without change and at this point it is pretty clear that you're just hopelessly stupid.

Why should the animal care where the peanutbutter it's licking is?

We have just reached Babylon Horuv levels of ick.

Congratulations. 
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 02, 2016, 10:47:51 pm
Sometimes, it's not the content, it's the distillation.

Bingo.

I have always been able to write prolifically. Being able to distill 3 pages of process into one paragraph of hard, spare clarity is much, much harder. Sometimes it's important to include the process, as in when walking an audience through the logical steps to your conclusion. Other times, the process is just background noise that can either be cut entirely, or reduced to scaffolding for the conclusion. There is a great book called "Everything's an Argument" that I recommend for learning how to include effective elements of your process, without just dumping a bunch of what is essentially mental-byproduct clutter on your readers.

I am definitely gonna have to add that to my reading list. If there were a such thing as a writing doctor, that sounds like it would be the winning prescription for me.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 02, 2016, 11:25:03 pm
We have just reached Babylon Horuv levels of ick.

Congratulations.

And yet that doesn't prove anything.

If we dictated morality by ick factor we'd still be oppressing homosexuals and fat people.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 02, 2016, 11:34:23 pm
We have just reached Babylon Horuv levels of ick.

Congratulations.

And yet that doesn't prove anything.

If we dictated morality by ick factor we'd still be oppressing homosexuals and fat people.

Can homosexuals give affirmative consent?

Fuck it, you disgust me too much.  I'm out.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 03, 2016, 03:00:09 am
Sometimes, it's not the content, it's the distillation.

Bingo.

I have always been able to write prolifically. Being able to distill 3 pages of process into one paragraph of hard, spare clarity is much, much harder. Sometimes it's important to include the process, as in when walking an audience through the logical steps to your conclusion. Other times, the process is just background noise that can either be cut entirely, or reduced to scaffolding for the conclusion. There is a great book called "Everything's an Argument" that I recommend for learning how to include effective elements of your process, without just dumping a bunch of what is essentially mental-byproduct clutter on your readers.

I am definitely gonna have to add that to my reading list. If there were a such thing as a writing doctor, that sounds like it would be the winning prescription for me.

Right on!
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on August 03, 2016, 04:16:04 am
Quote
But, considering the legacy of Discordians, I thought the point of a discordian forum was to consider many types of view points rather than seek the "correct" or "ethical" answer.


There is just so much wrong here, and every time I see this sentence it makes me wanna scream and headbutt someone to death.
My body is a squirming tower of molecular animals randomly generated by the quirks of perpetual chemical reactions, and they probably don't care what kind of porn I watch.

Yeah, the cells don't care. Because they don't have feelings. But when you subject yourself to long periods of time of hurtful, abusive sexual violence, you become desensitized, or you become attracted to such things. And when you do that, you start to become a bad fucking person. And when that happens, other "squirming towers of molecular animals" will beat you to a pulp with bar stools, or put you in the fucking ground if you actually hurt someone.

As someone who's known many people to go down that road and live that life, and stray temporarily down that path myself, I assure you it is a mistake. And let me explain why that is, in a morally blank manner:

You go down that path, you die in prison, or worse. Pretend to be some emotionless observer-being of logic all you want, it doesn't make a difference to people. Your logic will die with you, bloody and alone. Look at the world emptily, and it will gladly return the favor.

This is a great example of clarity of thought and conciseness of writing. Laying the smack down; boom. Well done.

Yeah, that was a pretty good explanation~! very concise and clear 

Don't get me wrong, we definitely should be respectful of everyone's humanity. I'm just prodding and poking around for different types of viewpoints rather than a humanist one.

On another note,
My question about if you eat meat was regarding the sexual abuse of animals in the meat industry.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 03, 2016, 04:22:28 am

Don't get me wrong, we definitely should be respectful of everyone's humanity. I'm just prodding and poking around for different types of viewpoints rather than a humanist one.


Try the republicans and/or libertarians.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: CBXTN on August 03, 2016, 04:54:21 am

Don't get me wrong, we definitely should be respectful of everyone's humanity. I'm just prodding and poking around for different types of viewpoints rather than a humanist one.


Try the republicans and/or libertarians.

hahaha

***

I'm kinda veering more into the object-oriented ontology direction
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 03, 2016, 04:54:52 pm
Yeah, that was a pretty good explanation~! very concise and clear 

Don't get me wrong, we definitely should be respectful of everyone's humanity. I'm just prodding and poking around for different types of viewpoints rather than a humanist one.

On another note,
My question about if you eat meat was regarding the sexual abuse of animals in the meat industry.

Thank you.

And I already expressed my feelings on that subject in your first post on the forum. I don't think supporting zoophilia is the answer. Changing the meat industry is.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 04, 2016, 07:03:43 am
I know several of you have expressed opinions that you should spay and neuter your pets. So it's ok to mutilate your an animal's junk, but not to touch it? How is that not a worse violation? And, glib followup question, now are you going to mutilate it without touching it?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 04, 2016, 02:39:01 pm
 :troll:
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 04, 2016, 04:27:42 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 05, 2016, 06:06:51 am
What about a dead animal?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: MMIX on August 05, 2016, 10:05:37 am
What about a dead animal?
Just eat it and be damned
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Junkenstein on August 05, 2016, 10:47:29 am
What about a dead animal?

What about the borderline retarded?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 05, 2016, 01:48:15 pm
What about a dead animal?

Bad because you are incentivizing either murder or catastrophically unhealthy practices or both (either you kill the animal yourself or you just find a rotting corpse somewhere and rub it all over one or more mucus membranes) to exploit a rape loophole.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 05, 2016, 02:58:27 pm
What about a dead animal?

Bad because you are incentivizing either murder

Moreso than hunting? Or the meat industry?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: trix on August 05, 2016, 04:03:11 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 05, 2016, 04:42:25 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).
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 05, 2016, 04:48:10 pm
to exploit a rape loophole.

He totally ignored this bit.

Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 05, 2016, 05:17:14 pm
to exploit a rape loophole.

He totally ignored this bit.

Yeah I'm getting out of the mudpit. Did my round.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: trix on August 05, 2016, 05:17:43 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).

You are correct.  I had not thought of it that way.

to exploit a rape loophole.

He totally ignored this bit.



Who, me?

EDIT:  Nevermind, not me.  Read through again.  I haven't had my coffee yet.  Give me a break.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on August 05, 2016, 05:18:34 pm

Who, me?

No, PDS.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 05, 2016, 05:27:29 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor 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)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: trix 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?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: trix 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...
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor 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
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 06, 2016, 05:24:39 am
Whoa. Is he seriously condoning rape?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel 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.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 06, 2016, 02:41:00 pm
Am I the only one? I can't be the only one.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 06, 2016, 03:00:28 pm
I'm not entirely sure, but I think maybe Pergamos thought you were asking if Pergamos was condoning rape, when you were asking if Pragu Donut Samson was the one condoning rape. Methinks Pergamos was rejecting the idea of himself condoning it, not PDS condoning it. Or did I misunderstand entirely? I could've.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 06, 2016, 03:03:22 pm
I was going to say this thread is dildoes, but that would be too accurate.


This thread is a dumpster fire.  A non-consenting dumpster fire.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 06, 2016, 03:13:59 pm
This thread forum is a dumpster fire.  A non-consenting dumpster fire.

Newsfeed.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 06, 2016, 03:16:34 pm
 :lulz:
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 06, 2016, 03:30:01 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.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: trix on August 06, 2016, 03:38:06 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

Nobody said it was worse, or compared drunken consent directly to drunk driving, except you.

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.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?

The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Not every person will regret it, become traumatized, and consider it rape.  That doesn't mean you take the chance and just hope you didn't damage someone.  Sex is fun, yeah, but not worth the risk that the drunk person wakes up the next morning feeling raped.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: trix on August 06, 2016, 03:40:38 pm
I was going to say this thread is dildoes, but that would be too accurate.


This thread is a dumpster fire.  A non-consenting dumpster fire.

If there are people here reading this that truly don't understand why having sex with a drunk person (or animal) is considered rape, it's a good thing that this thread exists and might convince them otherwise.

Or it might not, still worth the effort IMO
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 06, 2016, 03:59:41 pm
The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 06, 2016, 04:38:53 pm
The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

Will is made up of two parts - Awareness and choice, and alcohol removes one, and sometimes both of them, from the equation. This makes it against their Will at any moment they are under the influence.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 06, 2016, 04:52:39 pm
The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

Will is made up of two parts - Awareness and choice, and alcohol removes one, and sometimes both of them, from the equation. This makes it against their Will at any moment they are under the influence.

It can also remove the ability to communicate, depending on the level of drunkenness.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: PoFP on August 06, 2016, 04:54:13 pm
The idea is when someone is drunk, their will is compromised.  Thus, anything you do to them that they may not have agreed to without compromising their will, is assumed to be AGAINST THEIR WILL.  Just in case.

Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

Will is made up of two parts - Awareness and choice, and alcohol removes one, and sometimes both of them, from the equation. This makes it against their Will at any moment they are under the influence.

It can also remove the ability to communicate, depending on the level of drunkenness.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Cain on August 06, 2016, 05:30:38 pm
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/767/453/7c8.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on August 06, 2016, 06:41:24 pm
I'm not entirely sure, but I think maybe Pergamos thought you were asking if Pergamos was condoning rape, when you were asking if Pragu Donut Samson was the one condoning rape. Methinks Pergamos was rejecting the idea of himself condoning it, not PDS condoning it. Or did I misunderstand entirely? I could've.

Yep.  PDS is clearly condoning rape, he has been the whole thread.  Rape of animals and drunk chicks both.  I figured that was too clear to question which was why I assumed Nigel was addressing me  (that and the standard self enteredess that makes people always assume people are talking to or about them)
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on August 06, 2016, 06:45:31 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.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?

Here we have the crux of rape culture.  If rape is defined as narrowly as possible, to include only forcible penetration, then all sorts of other things, from intoxicated sex to coerced sex to sex with a power imbalance where one party doesn't really have the option of withholding consent all become ok.  The problem with that, aside from them not being ok in the first place, is that sort of definition makes violent rape more likely too.  The key defining factor of rape isn't trauma, it's lack of consent.  To use a nice simple example sex with a sleeping stranger is very clearly rape.  It's not traumatic if the person doesn't find out about it but that doesn't make it ok.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 06, 2016, 07:51:42 pm
Perg is comin' with the heat. 

Yeah, the problem with a "Devil's Advocacy" gambit is that you open yourself up to being way too clever about being a dick.

Which then make you look like a dick, not clever.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 06, 2016, 08:14:57 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.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?

Here we have the crux of rape culture.  If rape is defined as narrowly as possible, to include only forcible penetration, then all sorts of other things, from intoxicated sex to coerced sex to sex with a power imbalance where one party doesn't really have the option of withholding consent all become ok.  The problem with that, aside from them not being ok in the first place, is that sort of definition makes violent rape more likely too. 

Several problems wih this. Firstly it's an insane slippery slope argument akin to saying that marijuana use will becoming a crackhead. Secondly, you've used sort of a fractured argument that basically boils down to a tautology of the form "if people don't define x as bad, then people won't define x as bad". Thirdly, nobody gets to choose how words are defined, not even lexicographers or legislators. What it means is how it's used and how its used is what it means. Regardless of consequences. You're not the Ministry of Truth and you're not Humpty Dumpty.

The key defining factor of rape isn't trauma, it's lack of consent.

Firstly, lack of consent is the key defining factor of many crimes that rape is universally considered to be worse than - Theft comes to mind - how then do you rationalize the difference in seriousness? The only explanation I can think of is that you're puritanically putting sex on a pedistal, that you believe it is somehow sacred rather than just a mildly dangerous recreational actility like smoking or extreme sports.

Secondly, I believe that you're position is unfair to the drunk person. That's who I've been concerned about this whole time. You don't really care what they want. You care about what you think they should want based solely on what would have been the more responsible action back in the ancient past before the invention of penicillin, latex, and birth control pills.

EDIT:

Rereading that last paragraph I just realized a major problem with both sides of this argument. We haven't made clear who's initiating. I've been assuming that it is initiated by the drunk person, whereas you all seem to be assuming that it is initiated by the sober person.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 06, 2016, 08:22:30 pm
The problem with this argument is you.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 06, 2016, 08:32:59 pm
PDS, if your Devil's Advocate position is becoming uncomfortable, please stop.  You're shifting (or have shifted) from "Have we considered this argument yet" to "I want to fuck girls that are blacked out drunk at parties and here's why it's OK to do that."
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on August 06, 2016, 08:37:49 pm
Ok, I'll stop now. This has probably gone far enough.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: LMNO on August 06, 2016, 08:41:20 pm
Five pages ago, at least.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2016, 04:45:01 am
I'm not entirely sure, but I think maybe Pergamos thought you were asking if Pergamos was condoning rape, when you were asking if Pragu Donut Samson was the one condoning rape. Methinks Pergamos was rejecting the idea of himself condoning it, not PDS condoning it. Or did I misunderstand entirely? I could've.

OHHHHHH that makes sense. No, I definitely was not referring to Pergamos as the one appearing to condone rape! Sorry if that's what I sounded like I was saying!
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2016, 04:48:06 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.

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.

But it lacks the key aspects that make rape terrible, those of traumatically being forced to do something against one's will. Why should it be declared to be rape without that key defining factor?

HOLY FUCKING HELL SHIT FUCK DAMN since when is it not traumatizing to have things done to your body when you were not with full faculties?? Do you also think it's "not rape" when a doctor or dentist has sex with an anesthetized patient?

What the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2016, 04:51:41 am
Only their will at the moment matters (and changes in will before or after don't), otherwise any sex that you later regret (or wouldn't have tried before) would be rape, regardless of sobriety. And to be clear, alcohol impairs reason, not will; if anything it makes a lot of people more willful.

I'm only responding to your completely moronic drivel to assure anyone else who reads this piece of shit post that you are completely wrong about this and have, very obviously, zero education in psychology, sociology, neuroscience, or any other field that deals with human cognition, motivation, and behavior. You should really just shut up.

Also you should never interact with other people at all. Ever.

Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on August 07, 2016, 04:55:53 am
PDS, I just thought you were an idiot waste of time.

It turns out, actually, that you are a piece of shit idiot waste of time.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: trix on August 07, 2016, 05:12:05 am
PDS, I just thought you were an idiot waste of time.

It turns out, actually, that you are a piece of shit idiot waste of time.

Yeah.  I gave a real, honest try at seeing things from another perspective, but when I found myself halfway through a long post explaining why having sex with someone who is too drunk to know better is obviously immoral I realized my purpose in posting to this thread had been subverted and I've ended up on the majority side simply by virtue of a functioning moral compass.

So I decided, fuck this thread.  Since then my decision has only been reaffirmed for me.
Title: Re: Utah can't into filters on porn searches
Post by: Pergamos on August 07, 2016, 07:39:48 am
I do think it is useful to refine arguements against this, since there are people who believe that sex with drunk people is just fine.  Quite a lot of people.