This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Winy
Pages: 1 ... 686970 7172 ... 106
2071
« on: October 25, 2015, 09:46:33 PM »
This couldn't have been made by a sober man.
This episode disturbed me when I was younger. For some reason, I felt awful when the gerbil dude got thrown off the waterfall (I think that's how he died). Courage was a fucked up show.
2072
« on: October 25, 2015, 05:21:51 PM »
Up, Toy Story 2, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille are my favorite.
2073
« on: October 25, 2015, 02:03:39 PM »
death caused by stabbing
Last words: what are you gonna do stab me? I also use Reddit 
2074
« on: October 25, 2015, 12:47:03 PM »
Oh shit I forgot about Varrick.
Also GOAT
2075
« on: October 25, 2015, 12:34:27 PM »
Prince Wu is a fuckboy
2076
« on: October 25, 2015, 12:24:58 PM »
Everyone in LoK sucked besides Zaheer, Tenzin, and Wan.
2077
« on: October 25, 2015, 12:07:48 PM »
My Twisted World
2078
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:28:29 PM »
For the same reason we don't let pedophiles fuck kids. The consequences of having sex with a child are monumentally different from the consequences of having sex with a dog.
But you admit there are consequences either way.
I'm curious as to what you think the consequences of having sex with a dog are.
What is an STD.
I'll admit, I didn't really know you could contract an STD from a dog. But pretending there isn't, what else?
2079
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:27:57 PM »
even if you manage to prove that fucking dogs is moral, which you haven't, there's still the fact that it's grotesque
It is grotesque. Doesn't mean it has to be ethically wrong.
2080
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:25:46 PM »
For the same reason we don't let pedophiles fuck kids. The consequences of having sex with a child are monumentally different from the consequences of having sex with a dog.
But you admit there are consequences either way.
I'm curious as to what you think the consequences of having sex with a dog are.
2081
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:25:09 PM »
I'd never condone anybody fucking a dog. Why, you flip-floppity fuck? Is it okay or not okay with you to fuck dogs?
why am i arguing with some washed-up fuck who doesn't even know what he believes in
There's nothing confusing about what I wrote. Bestiality is disgusting. And anybody who participates in it is probably some ugly, miserable, pathetic fuck. But that's for reasons other than its morality, which is what I'm wondering about. You can have a perfectly moral action that's still absolutely fucking disgusting, and indicative of social deprivation, confusion, and desperation.
2082
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:23:01 PM »
Still, let your mind wander all you want, just know that trying to justify it is silly.
Uh, no? If I'm curious about something, or don't understand why a view is held, I'm going to ask about it. Not doing that is stupid.
2083
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:22:20 PM »
For the same reason we don't let pedophiles fuck kids. The consequences of having sex with a child are monumentally different from the consequences of having sex with a dog.
2084
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:20:35 PM »
You can like it, sure, GO AHEAD AND LIKE IT. Heck I like a few odd things people would probably condemn me over, but the important thing is to just not act over them. Let fantasies be fantasies. But I don't like it. Bestiality is fucking disgusting, and I'd never condone anybody fucking a dog. It suggest that person is socially depraved, confused, and desperate for sexual interaction. It's a strong indication of some warped upbringing or skewed perception of reality. That doesn't mean I can't ask and wonder about the morality of the idea. There's a difference between "Immoral" and "Fucking disgusting." I'm just trying to explore the reason behind something that most people consider so obvious.
2085
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:11:58 PM »
Dogs can reason. Not amazingly well, but enough to provide their forms of "Yes" and "No."
They have to be able to reason amazingly well.
Why?
2086
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:09:14 PM »
...Does a dog not understand the concepts of "Yes" (Voluntary agreement) and "No" (Voluntary disagreement)? They don't.
They also lack the ability to reason, which should go without saying.
I disagree with both of those statements. Dogs can reason. Not amazingly well, but enough to provide their forms of "Yes" and "No."
2087
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:07:20 PM »
Where's the line drawn betwen "Enough" and "Not enough?"
Being able to understand the concepts of "yes" and "no", and being able to clearly and repeatedly express them when asked the same question.
...Does a dog not understand the concepts of "Yes" (Voluntary agreement) and "No" (Voluntary disagreement)? And does a dog expressing a desire to mate with something not qualify as an adequate expression of the first option?
2088
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:02:47 PM »
Because consent only really matters if you're intelligent enough. This is why minors are not considered consent-worthy adults, because their minds have not developed yet to a sufficient capacity where they'd be able to make such decisions. This is why no children (or at least, very very few) legally live out on their own. It's up to the parents to make those judgments for them, for better or for worse. Isn't the entire point of whether or not some being is capable of giving consent determined by the actions and consequences that are being potentially influenced by them? They can have some form of rational understanding of what's going on.
But not enough.
Where's the line drawn betwen "Enough" and "Not enough?"
2089
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:01:47 PM »
Because consent only really matters if you're intelligent enough. This is why minors are not considered consent-worthy adults, because their minds have not developed yet to a sufficient capacity where they'd be able to make such decisions. This is why no children (or at least, very very few) legally live out on their own. It's up to the parents to make those judgments for them, for better or for worse. Isn't the entire point of whether or not some being is capable of giving consent determined by the actions and consequences that are being potentially influenced by them? They can have some form of rational understanding of what's going on.
2090
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:54:27 PM »
All of the things preceding that reaction were non-voluntary. The action, at its core, wasn't voluntary. But you said "yes" verbally. Sober, lucid.
That is all that matters.
I'm shocked that you feel that way, to be honest, because I'm not sure how you separate the capacity for somebody's will from their non-voluntary behavior when you account for the fact that nothing we do, fundamentally, is voluntary. It's all reaction to stimuli, whether internally or externally.
The point is that it feels voluntary. We can sit down and contemplate our actions and determine for ourselves whether or not we should do them. What has this got to do with your right to fuck an animal because it's too stupid to realize that you shouldn't be having sex with it?
I'm aware that the important thing is that it feels voluntary. I expressed that's how I feel in the Determinism thread in the Serious forum. I still don't understand how an animal can't give consent. It's comparatively stupid to me, but many of the things that make sexual acts so potentially taboo in human culture are eliminated once you're talking about something that isn't human. For example, the dog can't get pregnant, and it can't really be "Traumatized" if it initiates the sexual act to begin with. Consequences, I guess, aren't a factor in this. I think you can agree to that. The issue I understand you have is that animals can't agree to something non-verbally. Or, at least, in a non-verbal way that really matters, because the sensation of pleasure is non-voluntary. But... I disagree with that. I don't think that because a reactive instance is non-voluntary means it can't be referenced for future use as a form of consent, or even during the first instance that it comes into play. I can't wrap my head around why that's a bad thing.
2091
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:48:40 PM »
I liked Luci's explanation for my perspective on this the best. It was a much better way of phrasing things than I've been able to come up with.
2092
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:47:23 PM »
All of the things preceding that reaction were non-voluntary. The action, at its core, wasn't voluntary. But you said "yes" verbally. Sober, lucid.
That is all that matters.
I'm shocked that you feel that way, to be honest, because I'm not sure how you separate the capacity for somebody's will from their non-voluntary behavior when you account for the fact that nothing we do, fundamentally, is voluntary. It's all reaction to stimuli, whether internally or externally.
2093
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:43:56 PM »
...That's still the result of non-voluntary reaction to stimuli. No it fucking isn't. If I say, "I am a perfectly lucid, intelligent, and sober sentient being and I am giving you my formal consent to have sex with me," that is the best fucking form of consent there is. Unbeatable.
Feeling happy because someone jerked your dick off, whether you asked for it or not?
Not consent.
All of the things preceding that reaction were non-voluntary. The action, at its core, wasn't voluntary. This is gonna get into determinism, fuck.
2094
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:42:42 PM »
Petty consent is malleable, it's as severity increases that the need for consent becomes closer to 100%.
How is this determined?
2095
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:40:17 PM »
Is the expressing of pleasure not a form of consent? It isn't. Pleasure is not a voluntary reaction to stimuli.
Literally nothing is a voluntary reaction to stimuli.
Exactly.
Which is why verbal consent is the only truly acceptable form of consent there is.
...That's still the result of non-voluntary reaction to stimuli.
2096
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:38:01 PM »
Is the expressing of pleasure not a form of consent? It isn't. Pleasure is not a voluntary reaction to stimuli.
Literally nothing is a voluntary reaction to stimuli.
2097
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:36:10 PM »
Is it immoral that I pet my dog because they can't give consent, despite expressing pleasure after I do it?
And then they just come back so I can do it again? Why can't an animal give consent?
I'm pretty sure they're saying that unless it could give human-type consent, any other kind of consent doesn't exist and is invalid as an argument.
I think sex is a great bit different than touching a dog's nose.
Why?
2098
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:34:15 PM »
Is it immoral that I pet my dog because they can't give consent, despite expressing pleasure after I do it? Probably, to be honest. I'd have to think about that.
I've wondered about the morality of owning pets in the first place.
Is the expressing of pleasure not a form of consent? Is the returning of the dog to get petted again not a form of expressed desire? Is it seriously immoral to pet my damn dog? I'm gonna have a hard time believing it is.
2099
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:33:02 PM »
Is it immoral that I pet my dog because they can't give consent, despite expressing pleasure after I do it?
And then they just come back so I can do it again? Why can't an animal give consent?
I'm pretty sure they're saying that unless it could give human-type consent, any other kind of consent doesn't exist and is invalid as an argument.
My question is why?
2100
« on: October 24, 2015, 10:32:30 PM »
Verb: "Winy I just fucking told you."
Phenomenal, it didn't register well with me Then that is YOUR neurological fucking issue. Get your head checked.
Thanks for the response
Pages: 1 ... 686970 7172 ... 106
|
Show Posts