Total posts: 4,432
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Understanding exactly what I am doing to them (or in my case what they are doing to me) is a different matter entirely. We both know that bit is going in that hole. We both know that the other endorses this procedure. The animal may understand fluid is being transferred. The animal definitely doesn't understand that the fluid contains tiny machines called cells. There is no doubt something I don't understand about it as well, I can't tell you what that is but if I had lived 200 years ago I would not know about the cells.Let's also not forget the potential to extract harmful diseases or transfer these diseases to the animal. I am sure the animal would not understand that as well.
No they would not, but I'm not claiming they consent to a medical risk. I'm claiming they're consenting to sex. Someone who has taken responsibility for an animal takes responsibility for those things the animal doesn't know. When a dog licks your face they don't know about disease it might spread, and it can spread disease just as surely as any other fluid transfer can.
Yet it is not abuse to let a dog lick your face if you have no reason to expect that a disease will be transferred, and that is a pretty good bet since serious zoonoses are also serious intraspecies diseases.
Covid is technically a zoonosis for instance. Not because it came from a bat (maybe), but because non-humans can be infected. In that light every-time someone came home from shopping they were potentially exposing a pet to a serious disease. Sex isn't required to transmit, just breathing. Does that mean the only moral action to take is to abandon the dog in the forest? Never keep animals again?
Strange how remote and non-specific risks become super important when disgust is involved and excuses are needed. Based on the last two years it's not like we have a coherent moral consensus on contagious diseases when considering only our own species.
Just because worse things are "legally" allowed to be done to animals, I feel like that isn't a good argument for partaking in something especially if you feel it is wrong.That is essentially correct and I am total agreement. Even a perfect liberal set of laws allows plenty of room for vice. However in this case this isn't something "worse" it's something considerably better than average.I am confused. By better than the average, are you insinuating that this is doing the animals in question a favor or am I misunderstanding?
Yes I am saying that it is a net positive for them. It isn't just harmless it's beneficial (in most cases). Many many domestic animals are mutilated and never experience sexual satisfaction of any kind.
You need only ask the mirror if you would be happier under those circumstances.
If you do believe there is an intractable moral problem in the production of a product then I would agree with the vegans that you are part of the problem if you consume it. In your case however the problem could equally be said to be a lack of transparency in allowing you to choose to buy "humane" beef.I mean if one person refuses to buy a product where millions continue to do so, who would I really be proving a point to buy buying a more expensive product than a cheaper one? I can just pretend to feel good about myself while being out a few extra dollars. At that point I might as well sniff my own farts to help save the environment
I'm sure that's what Thomas Jefferson told himself, and now they tear down his statues for only talking and not doing (he did a bit of doing though).
A similar moral logic exists with votes, why should I vote when I know I will never get a rep that accurately represents me? I'm not a Kantian acolyte but his moral formulation does have some merit. If you assume everyone else will do the wrong thing, and thus do the wrong thing; then you don't know how much of an affect you could have had if you had done the right thing and people had seen you doing the right thing.
I imagine your value of "pleasure" isn't strong enough to supersede another's value of liberty, life and prosperity correct?
Correct, as of now; (being obese) I will brag that I would starve to death rather than infringing on another's liberty.
Do you believe animals are entitled the same values as humans are also?
Those were abstract values, not necessarily specific to myself. They weren't rights. Let's take pleasure, I value pleasure for myself and other people. I don't think I or others have a right to pleasure. That's very important, if you tell somebody they have a right to pleasure (or housing) the next thing you know they'll be aiming a gun at you telling you to pleasure them (or give them your house).
Do I value those things in non-humans? Yes, in proportion to their applicability. A tree can be alive, and I prefer a living tree to a dead tree. A tree cannot have liberty though. A dog can have life, liberty, pleasure, but not much in the way of truth/reason so I don't agonize over all the things a dog doesn't know.
A different but related question is animal rights. Humans have a right to not get murdered. That is the right that corresponds to life but it is not a right to life, nobody has a duty to keep you alive. Do animals have a right to not be killed?
I don't know. In my moral framework there is a recognition of an abstract alternative to might-makes-right. Certainly at some point in advancing rational faculty a non-human must be included.
I thus proceed on fuzzy logic. When an animal is domesticated they show a basic ability to respect the rights of humans. To the degree they can do this I think it should be reciprocated.
My issue is "what feels good to them" I feel like can be arbitrary decided for them.
but again they are not a black box which emits no indication of what's going on inside. I have talked about ways to ascertain consent, but I have also alluded to sex being requested. A common example of this is the retrival of socks, many zoosexuals who engage in receptive sex from a male dog put socks on the dog beforehand so they don't get scratched up.
If you are familiar with dogs in general you would know they will often wait by the door when they want to go out, or even bring a leash to a human when they want to go on a walk.
The socks are only associated with one type of activity. The dog makes the connection. Sometimes the dog will find the socks and bring them to the human out of the blue. That's not arbitrary. Whatever it is that they find desirable about the encounters is strong enough for the memory to induce longing for a repeat. Occam's razor has a very simple answer as to what it is they get out of it.
That is only one example, there are many.
Many sexual practices are mutual.
Indeed.
Yeah petting a dogs belly, or scratching them behind the ear might feel good to them, but when it comes to the other stuff there is a lot left to interpretation about whether the dog or animal enjoys everything.
It's about the same level of interpretation I would say. How do you know scratching feels good to them? Belly rubs? (which are sometimes semi-erogenous)... because they come back for more. It's not theory, it's obvious; everyone with a dog knows it.
Is it always all pleasure? Probably not. Every once in a while someone is going to scratch too hard. Snag some hair. Pet too long.
Does the animal go catatonic with fear? No, they whine (or whatever for the species); if it was bad enough they walk away. Then the next day (or hour) they get over it and come back for more. If they think the good outweighs the bad that's their choice and the unbiased observer can relate.
For example the dog might enjoy it for a few seconds, but the second they stop enjoying it or not want to engage anymore the human has to be okay with that as well for it not to be rape.
Obviously
As mentioned earlier, it would be easy to make an excuse that the dog is still enjoying it for your own sake of wanting to finish, and it's not exactly like the dog can protest.
It is exactly like they can protest at the start, middle, and end.
And if they do you can arbitrarily decide that its a sound of pleasure. See what I mean?
Not really, yes I could decide that whining is a sign of pleasure or that walking away means "chase me, I love it", just like I could decide that the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese.
People act on perceptions and beliefs. Nothing survives the proposition of delusion or serious irrationality. I could swerve into school children next time I drive. That doesn't mean I will nor does it mean you are entitled to call me a vehicular murderer, nor does it mean cars should be outlawed.
In this way wanting an animal to feel good isn't just for their benefit, it's for your own as well.
So:
I want the animal to feel good in general because I value pleasure/satisfaction and seek that value in those closest to me
I want the animal to feel good because if they aren't feeling good they probably will withdraw consent at some point and then I won't get to finish (and thus rejected I'll have to find solace in the arms of some human poor me)
You're saying that there would be no reason to lie to myself about the first value, but for the second there is a reason to lie.
People do maintain tangled webs of contradictions in their mind all the time, so I would never say that some thinking like that isn't possible. However I do not see a fundamental difference between them.
If I tell myself that it makes me feel good when the animal feels good (and thus I could smile when they're having fun on the beach), why wouldn't I lie to myself about that? I could say to myself that the dog staring out into the rain looking bored as hell is actually profound glee and then I could feel good right?
Why even have a dog at all, I could just imagine a dog and pat myself on the back. Are there no sex toys to aid masturbation?
As with everything there are no rewards for faking reality. The difference between a dog and a good sex toy is the dog is sharing the experience. If you have to imagine the shared pleasure there is no point. If you have to imagine the consent reality would bite you in the form a dog's jaws.
Animals lack of understanding and unconditional innocence is love is why most humans refer to their pets as "their babies", or their "best friends".
They refer to pets as children because they're stroking their own parental instincts. In almost every context this presents nothing but benefits for the animal so I do not object, but there is nothing especially noble or inevitable about it. Higher mammal love is certainly not unconditional. It is almost impossible to accidentally lose it, but if they think you betrayed them or abandoned them they will remember and it will take a long time to trust again.
There is a huge measure of responsibility in owning a pet because they lack the ability to effeciently take care of themselves.
Depends on the species and even the breed. A cat or a husky born in the wild to a competent mother is hardly doomed.
We provide them shelter, food and love, and they give us love back.
We put them into a situation where our shelter is best and our food is the only food. Their instincts aren't geared towards being babies they are geared towards being members in a pack or herd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I didn't say I have sex with non-humans, let us say hypothetically that I have in some jurisdiction where it would be legal to do so. I could in that case know that I had the animal's consent by applying an inductive argument to their behavior (including vocalizations) in the context of my knowledge of their personality and history. That description technically describes the assessment of consent from humans as well, it is never known with 100% certainty; one simply must eliminate the absurd in order to live.I mean this argument generally doesn't hold up for humans either though."S/He seemed into it to me" Is not always substantiative agreement for sexual engagement. Consider many variables:1. A human may have said no, but because the sexual aggressor's own perceptive decided that the victim was into it, they may look past such a dis-agreement. The "No means no" thing is even harder for a household pet because they literally don't have the ability to say no. In the case of a dog, they may have expressed dis-interest at one point and then become amenable to it knowing that you are the one in control and ultimately decide things for them, just as you might with giving a dog a bath or feeding them. They are used to being submissive to you and having to learn to like it. In this sense it's almost impossible for a Dog to "consent". It's more proportionate to "Okay this is happening whether I like it or not, so I might as well try and enjoy it", which is probably the case with humans who have said no as well in many situations they feel powerless in. They also don't know what your capable of upon rejection, threat of physical harm might make both an animal or a human more amenable to "just going along with it".
Consider the full implications of your example. If the individual is willing to object strenuously to a bath to the point of holding onto door frames (google it), where is their fear of physical harm? Where is their despairing acceptance?
If it only comes out for bath time, but not sex time; one can only reasonably conclude that sex is a lesser imposition than a bath in their mind (if it is an imposition at all).
More generally:
They also don't know what your capable of upon rejection, threat of physical harm might make both an animal or a human more amenable to "just going along with it".
Certainly. Humans can communicate in a complex manner and thus any experience of any human anywhere can easily become part of the general knowledge base of a human. So if a vulnerable human found themselves in the hands of a human trafficking gang they would be able to infer that non-cooperation would be met with violence and thus fail to voice their objection.
Needless to say cooperation under threat of force is not consent.
A non-human animal does not have complex language however. Their entire knowledge base is from personal experience & observations (with some rare exceptions such as dolphins perhaps).
If a dog has never been treated violently they absolutely do not fear it. They cannot fear it in response to anything. It is unusual for a dog to never be scolded, that would tend to be a dog who you can't let inside. However they are not so stupid as to fail to realize that some types of behavior are subject to some types of punishment while others are not.
If for example you yell at a dog for peeing the carpet and throw them outside consistently for it, but only gruffly complain without any physical action when they take food off the table. They will take food off the table when you aren't looking.
This demonstrates not a blanket unconquerable fear but a very real awareness of a gradation of offenses, some of which are so mild as to be risked but not sought after. It also shows knowledge that humans are not omniscient.
If you never punish a dog ever for any expression or decision they make with regards to sex, they will not transplant the same concern they have about peeing the carpet over to sex. They will learn (quickly) that "no" is an option. They will only use the bare minimum of communication that is required, escalating only if necessary.
Consider a cat who does not like how it is being pet. A cat who is used to humans who pay careful attention to their body language and vocalizations will tail flick, then moan (like a meow of a certain pitch), then try to get away, then scratch and bite. That is escalating levels of communication, they go through them sequentially because the less violent and obvious signals have worked before. A cat who is constantly assaulted by petting from people who don't pay attention at all will quickly resort to scratching and biting first thing. They have learned that it is the only thing a human understands.
For the truly uncomfortable events the only way to make an animal fail to object is to force them through all escalated communication and show them none of it matters. You may want to look up the traditional "horse breaking" (some geniuses have come along recently and demonstrated you can simply convince the horse that everything is fine with patience.. duh). The idea that they can harbor a secret fear never once expressed is hopelessly inconsistent with the available evidence.
2. The type of consent you are implying you think is obvious from this animal can be distorted by the horniness factor of the aggressor. Let's face it, when you are in the mood, you don't always think clearly. Add alcohol or drugs into the mix, and your judgement further goes out the window. It's simple biology, but when some people have that urge, they may be willing to pursue that urge. If you haven't seen the movie "The last duel" (you should it's really good), the entire theme of this movie hinges on this principle of perceived consent. The aggressor(Jacques De LeGris) is shown to have a sexual background where playfulness and escape attempt are a normal part of sexual activity and fun. When he engages in this with the victim Marguerite, they show from his perspective a distorted view of her enjoyment. The movie then shows the same scene from her perspective, where their is no playfulness whatsoever, and the fear and horror is real. The aggressor of sexual assault can't always identify the difference however. This problem can be amplified when you factor in that an animal can't physically speak.
An excellent example. There are crazy people, drunk people, desperate people, very stupid people, and even people who are so used to roleplay that they don't know what the hell is going on.
Did being able to speak save Marguerite? Did being as intelligent as Jacques?
So for the sake of argument lets say the problem is amplified, I personally don't believe it is because the fault is almost entirely in the mind of the aggressor, there is no real lack of clarity either in the case of Marguerite or in the actions of an animal rejecting an interaction.
Yet let us say that is the case, it is easier to delude yourself into thinking you have consent from an animal than a human. So what? Do you consider human on human sex too risky to allow? No, you'll advocate for minimizing risk and for punishing those who are malicious or grossly negligent but you don't feel yourself entitled to break into people's bedroom to prevent what might be rape for all you know.
Furthermore it would be insane to accuse you of supporting rape just because rape is possible and you didn't decide to condemn all sex due to that possibility.
This problem can be amplified when you factor in that an animal can't physically speak. Those "barks" or "groans" you think are enjoyment could just as easily be protest or discomfort. Its ultimately entirely in your jurisdiction to decide that.
Barks are excitement or warning, they would indicate neither pleasure nor pain. If a dog is barking they are looking out the window at a squirrel and have no idea that something sexual is going on. Growling (except for play fights) is the vocalization that would indicate non-consent. Whining is for discomfort, complaints, and begging. Pinned ears and tucked tail are fear, anxiety, or submission. Wagging tail is positive excitement.
I'm enumerating these things as an illustration of ambiguities that could exist but can be eliminated by following a few simple rules. In a sexual context growling must always be interpreted as non-consent rather than play-fighting. Whining must always be interpreted as pain and not begging. Pinned ears always as fear or anxiety and non submission.
What I'm talking about here is not a secret art from a book of black magic. All people who regularly interact with dogs learn this language. That's how they can report a dog's fears and preferences when asked. All I am talking about is taking this obvious and universally known communication methods and applying them to sex.
In that since it is not "in my jurisdiction" insofar as it is a whim or reading tarot cards. Given a recording any objective observer could come to the same conclusions about any particular interaction.
Does that mean I am advocating for cameras in every zoosexuals home? No I am not. There is a fundamental error in linking the likelihood of preventing crime with criminalization. It would be just as immoral and pointless to assert that homosexuals need to be recorded 24/7 to make sure they aren't raping little boys (or else you'll make MSM illegal).
And ultimately the argument of "we do worse things to animals for food" isn't a good enough argument to make up for the fact that you believe rape is bad, but agree with practicing it against animals is okay. If you have the power to control your behavior that directly prevents rape it becomes a question of whether you should act on that practice or not.
But I don't agree that raping animals is okay and I said exactly that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
@RationalMadman
RationalMadman:Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.
I had noticed the low volume, it's generally true of a lot of general topic forums. I think it's a combination of being sucked into reddit and increasing preference for echo chambers. For instance I am on a zoophile forum which appears to be roughly twice as active just within the controversial topic section.
If that's the case there is nothing DART can do to attract more people besides being as open as possible. It is the belief that all opposition is beyond redemption and the fear of partisan moderation (or the desire for partisan moderation) that is driving the migration to echo chambers.
coal:An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar. Nazi walks into a bar. The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious. Other patrons ask why. Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar. Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar. Simple as that.
And clearly this has successfully eradicated neo-nazism.... Hardly, the allure of forbidden knowledge and secret conspiracies is their #1 recruitment factor. However few there are, there would be far fewer if more people were willing to destroy them in open debate.
and if that wasn't the case? If it is true that you can successfully suppress a political philosophy or a view on sexual behavior simply by banning every attempt to bridge the gap what would that mean? That would mean the only sane thing for a suppressed point of view to do the moment it gains any kind of institutional power is to suppress the crap out of opposition. An endless cycle of censorship, will to power, power to truth.... which ironically is a very nazi conception of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Therefore, you HAD to make a thread to justify why it's okay to have sex with dogs?
It was the most reasonable option.
I could have argued about it in the introduction thread and randomly in other threads as people who just can't keep it to themselves have to bring it up out of context. Then they would claim that I cross-contaminated threads by responding to their comments.
I could have ignored him and anyone else who talked about it. However that would give the impression that I agree even in the slightest that it is an unacceptable topic of discussion, it also may have conveyed the notion that I am ashamed or unable to explain exactly why condemning bestiality is irrational. (if I was willing to commit to emotional manipulation I would say "zoophobia" instead of "condemning bestiality").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The only epistemologically sound way to define a concept like "burden of proof" is to consult established reference material for the commonly agreed meaning and function of that concept. While we can agree that there are sources superior to Wikipedia, we must also conclude that you are not one of those superior sources.
If you had thought critically about it yourself you could be the source. There is no other rational possibility besides what I have described and I will entertain no alternatives.
If you don't like Wikipedia's definition of Proof of Concept, you can try another well-sourced definition but you can't simply insert your personal, blinkered notions of how burden of proof works and expect anybody's respect.
I won't be able to reason with anyone who can't reason, and anyone who believes logic and truth are born in university printing presses can't reason. This is a general pattern with me BTW, zero interest in trading links to supposed authorities not for the sake of data but simply to echo one's claims; it's a lazy and absurd evolution of "nah uh" cycle.
Depictions in art aren't reliable evidence for legal status.
That is technically true, but then again I can find you many links to people claiming Alexander of Macedon was gay because "we think so, he spent time around men you know".
What is unlikely is that an act which is considered inherently immoral is put on a building that is meant to be sacred or performed by clergy for the sake of the gods.
The balance of evidence is that the civilizations I listed were ambivalent to bestiality, homosexuality, and even pederasty. In that circumstance your flawed formulation of BoP would coincide with the correct one, namely that if you are going to treat something as immoral/real you need to have a reason to believe it is immoral/real. You can't just assume everything is immoral/real until proven otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
RM caused you to make a post about how it's not wrong to fuck dogs? How's that exactly?
He brought it up in the introduction thread, causing other people to start arguing about it in that thread. If he had not felt the need to try and assassinate my character immediately, perhaps no one would have started frothing at the mouth threatening to derail the introduction thread for 20 pages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I saw your recent post in the quantum randomness thread, you sir are cut from a different cloth I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
@Benjamin
I think what you’re talking about is the “hidden variables” theory. The notion that QT is actually a manifestation of unseen physical laws - the proposed solution to “God doesn’t play dice”.We can rule out hidden variables to some degree:If you consider quantum entanglement of two particles, measurement of spin yields perfect anti correlation (IE if one particular is up, the other must be down).There are multiple axes in which spin can be measured, and if these are determined based on some hidden property of the particle, there must be some hidden value for each of the axes associated with the particle.The problem comes that quantum theory predicts that there is a specific probability of one axis being in a given state based on what another was measured in. A second order probability if you will.That gives you something you can measure; if you measure the first axis multiple times, and it gives you 50% up/down, the second axis’s should have a lesser probability. If you measure the second axis first, QT predicts that it will give you up/down equal amounts of times; the first axis then has a lower probability.This difference in probability is called Bells inequality; and violations of the inequality implies there are no local hidden variables (hidden variables shared that can be communicated regardless of distanced between the two particles are not ruled out)
This is an old post, but I believe that's assuming too much about Benjamin's original post.
The spin of entangled particles isn't the only "random" think in quantum mechanics, and Bell's inequality was more specifically focused on the notion that variables could be set at the time of entanglement and only measured later... to escape from spooky action.
However wave collapse in of itself is quite spooky, and has an element of randomness to it. Yes the probability distribution is perfectly predicted by the wave; but where it will actually collapse to isn't and I think that was what Benjamin was referring to.
One can observe this in the case of a single "particle" so entanglement need have nothing to do with it. Is there a hidden variables (of the wave, because let's face it we can only attach properties to waves) that could predict beyond the square of the wave where the collapse will occur (the 'particle' 'hits')?
I don't see any reason why not. It could be like dice, chaotic but not fundamentally so.
However dice exist, and so do other very common chaotic systems. QM never deserved to have this profound effect on philosophy some seem to think it has. The universe has always been unpredictable because it has always had classically chaotic systems in it.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
The part that is peculiar is he aimed (this was years ago so idk if he changed) at making male dogs hump him if I recall correctly.
I have not changed, "letting" would be a more accurate word, and "aimed" implies it's some kind of complicated project that could take years to come to fruition. You know people have to train some dogs to not hump your leg right?
To me, his variation of bestiality is the equivalent of a power bottom who thinks no male human will want him that way. I don't want to ridicule him and dig deep into whatever trauma(s) and memories caused this.
Each individual has their own charms and let downs. Each biology has benefits and drawbacks. One is not a substitute for the other. It is not for lack of access real or imagined that I have done or desire to do anything. After all I'm sure you're aware that male prostitutes can be hired if I was so desperate.
I am not aware of any trauma that could be related to my sexuality.
I am curious why you would create this baseless speculation? Why in the world would it make you feel better to think of me as essentially a tragic and lost homosexual than a zoosexual?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Lol, you [RationalMadman] called it with this guy
He caused it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I maintain that:1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral2. Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.I have no burden of proof for the first statement.False. Wikipedia advises:When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."Let's agree that the statement "Bestiality is not immoral" challenges the perceived status quo in any well known culture or time period.
First, Wikipedia is wrong, I know unimaginable, yet true. Such a formulation of BoP is based on the arbitrary cultural perspective of the time and almost random happenstance of how an assertion may have come to in a conversation. It is thus absurd in the context of any kind of serious rational inquiry.
The only epistemologically sound BoP is based on the evidentiary pattern of existence vs non-existence. The non-existent does not present evidence of its non-existence. The existent only sometimes presents evidence of its existence.
The BoP is on the positive assertion, that is the assertion of existence. Never on the assertion of non-existence. Observe:
This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
What if the assertion is that there is no evidence? Shall we search for evidence of non-evidence lest we be dismissed?
To the extent that you have brought no evidence, the onus of proof is on you and this claim may be dismissed without argument until that onus is met.
Explain the burden of proof for this assertion:
The claim that there is a flying spaghetti monster is without support.
Second,
Let's agree that the statement "Bestiality is not immoral" challenges the perceived status quo in any well known culture or time period.
I don't agree: ancient Egypt, classical Greece, or a period in India during which a temple depicting bestiality was constructed... but then again education isn't great so you might claim those aren't well known cultures.
Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.Disagree- depends on the framework governing that "should" For example it would not be inherently immoral to assassinate Vladimir Putin today. Such an act would save tens of thousands of live, preserve democracy in the West, preserve Ukrainian and Russian sovereignty, and avoid the threat of nuclear showdown. But assassination should and of a right ought to be illegal in the context of state sovereignty.
An example is most often effective as a reduction to absurdity, but the greater absurdity to me would be asserting that if someone is threatening the life and liberty of tens of thousands of others you are obligated to slaughter his goons before you let him off the hook. In short this example failed because I see no reason assassination should be illegal if it is the only practicable way to avoid the deprivation of rights to the innocent.
You seem to assume that I would consider this scenario morally different from a sniper taking out a hostage taking bank robber, but I don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
really don't know what an amoral meaning of "support" would be in this context.I believe in an objective universal morality that (if pushed) could be condensed to single words like "liberty" or "consent" (they are avatars of the same concept). So I don't support non-consent, ever. The only time I ever encourage ignoring someone's consent is to prevent them from ignoring consent themselves. i.e. punishment/justice.Good to know. So you think you can substantiate that the animals you have sex with consent and understand exactly what you are doing to them when you have sex with them?
I didn't say I have sex with non-humans, let us say hypothetically that I have in some jurisdiction where it would be legal to do so. I could in that case know that I had the animal's consent by applying an inductive argument to their behavior (including vocalizations) in the context of my knowledge of their personality and history. That description technically describes the assessment of consent from humans as well, it is never known with 100% certainty; one simply must eliminate the absurd in order to live.
Understanding exactly what I am doing to them (or in my case what they are doing to me) is a different matter entirely. We both know that bit is going in that hole. We both know that the other endorses this procedure. The animal may understand fluid is being transferred. The animal definitely doesn't understand that the fluid contains tiny machines called cells. There is no doubt something I don't understand about it as well, I can't tell you what that is but if I had lived 200 years ago I would not know about the cells.
I don't want to pull a Cathy Newman and do the whole "so your saying" thing, but am I misunderstanding you by assuming you are breaking this down argumentatively by saying not all bestiality is rape because, but in cases where you feel an animal has not consented, you feel it is not okay?
If Cathy Newman was doing it honestly there wouldn't be a problem.
I believe not all bestiality is rape, but some bestiality is rape. It is rape when it is not consensual. I find that unacceptable, however regardless of whether I found it acceptable or not it would be rape given the definition of rape I gave.
A legal definition of rape might not hold non-consenting bestiality to be rape because animals aren't persons under the law. That is why I am very careful about definitions, words serve a purpose and when a word has moral connotations like "rape" its definition must be carefully tailored to reflect the morally relevant concept, in this case consent regardless of some legal notion of personhood.
Just because worse things are "legally" allowed to be done to animals, I feel like that isn't a good argument for partaking in something especially if you feel it is wrong.
That is essentially correct and I am total agreement. Even a perfect liberal set of laws allows plenty of room for vice. However in this case this isn't something "worse" it's something considerably better than average.
But in my own words with eating a cheeseburger that was the result of an animal being tortured in a factory, I can justify that by being so far removed from the torture itself that I can enjoy the product. A vegan could argue I am part of the problem because corporations will continue torturing animals as long as I purchase the product and continuously provide them the money to do so, they will continue to murder animals in the fastest most profitable way regardless of the harm done to the animals. I feel that even if I rioted and advocated with the vegans, there would never be enough support to make people care, especially over populated countries, or starving countries. There simply will always be a market for this, and whether I do or do not stop eating cheeseburgers, nothing will change or come of it, so why not eat the burger while admitting I think they way they are produced is horrible and wish it was changed? The act of eating a cheeseburger isn't wrong to me if the killing of the animal is done humanely, but considering I have no control over that process, I think it's okay to do it.
I agree that it is unlikely that beef or pork eating will end anytime soon. It is far more likely that that meat will become lab-grown before people give it up. I would caution against believing everything vegan activists say. I have been to many local farms and there is very little in the way of torture (especially for dairy). I know there are mega-corp farms where the vegans get their shock-footage but I would be wary of their statistical math.
There is no nice way to kill, and I don't eat beef or pork (or any other mammal), but I do still eat chicken and turkey. Not sure about that, but I have zero reservations about eggs, milk, fish, and arthropods.
In reference to over-populated or starving countries, cattle farming is a terrible idea if you're actually in a calorie deficient. Just feed the people corn instead of feeding the bovids and then the people. I say that like it is novel advice but nobody needs to be told, poor people do eat less meat because meat is hard to produce compared to grain and tubers.
If you do believe there is an intractable moral problem in the production of a product then I would agree with the vegans that you are part of the problem if you consume it. In your case however the problem could equally be said to be a lack of transparency in allowing you to choose to buy "humane" beef.
In the case of bestiality though, that is something we have control over, and just because it's mostly legal, doesn't mean your participation doesn't directly harm the animal.
It's not mostly legal in most places in the west. The legality has no bearing on the actual reality of harm or non-harm. I know there is no harm by observation and inference in the context of all my knowledge. That's the only way to know anything.
This whole debate is a matter of ideas and philosophy at its core, and I want to understand from you without playing the argumentative games that miss the point. I want to understand what your morals are telling you and how you aren't contradicting them.
Without conceding that requiring common definitions is "playing the argumentative games that miss the point" I'll try to answer in brief.
My values are liberty, knowledge/truth/reason, life, prosperity, beauty, and pleasure more or less in that order.
I don't always pursue my values to the best of my ability, if I did that would mean I was perfectly virtuous and nobody is perfect.
There are many temptations and apparent conflicts between values that come up in my life and always come up in people's lives.
If I were to make a list of disappointing or frustrating elements where the correct course of action isn't obvious bestiality would not make the top 50. Why? It's actually very simple and straightforward concept. Above polytheist was talking about BSDM and safewords. That's a human making things as complicated as possible. A dog doesn't make things complicated they make things simple. They want food, they want to explore, they want to play, and they want what feels good to them.
It's not rocket science and there is not that much room for error. Communicating future intention is hard. Communicating current opinion [good or bad] is very easy. Anyone who has interacted with domestic animals can attest to this.
With the basest of good sense in selecting activities and times sex can be more than something they tolerate it can be something they look forward to, beg for. Not always, every one of them forms their own ideas (which is the reason their consent can be said to exist). Some won't even let the first time happen. Some won't let the second time happen. Some will try to make it happen every day.
There have been experiments which attempt to evaluate relative motivations in animals by forcing them to choose between doors after they have learned only one will open.
Through such experiments they have established that some cats or dogs or horses will actually choose playing a simple game with a human over food. Many cats and some dogs are mortal enemies of bathtime and they will let you know it. I have no doubt that if an experiment was setup in which they were to choose (and it happened enough times that they understood what they are choosing) between a treat, playing with a human, and mating with a human a significant number would choose mating.
There is no tradeoff, there is no "greater good" or "lesser evil" it's just good. There is no contradiction on the horizon so if you thinking of one you're going to have to say it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Animals cannot consent. That's why people are able to purchase them and breed them and do all sort of things without the animals having any say in it.
Yet people have purchased other people and bred them and did all sorts of things without the slaves having any say in it. That does not prove consent is not possible, and if consent was impossible then it would not be needed.
Bestiality is rape therefore it's abuse whether you think the animal is complying or not.
Choose definitions for rape and abuse and I shall disabuse you.
A lot of times pedophiles will say well the children didn't say no and that's because children don't know that they can. They are trusting the person older than them to do what's in their best interest and therefore they allow things to be done with them without saying yes or no because they don't know what's going on.
This is essentially true.
An animal can be conditioned to do the same thing to basically submit not hurt the person hurting them and take the abuse.
Depending on the species and character of the animal this can be true. Certainly many dogs will sit and let a vet use needles on them. If they were not punished extensively beforehand every time they whined, they will whine.
You are a rapist as far as I'm concerned you are an abuser of a being that has lesser ability to understand and communicate than you. That makes you seriously compromise morally and mentally as far as I am concerned. These are all just my personal opinions and obviously I'm not the only one to think them because they're all laws preventing this from happening because in general society of use it as sickness.
Yet if you cannot substantiate your beliefs I have no reason to agree to them.
The difference between that and two consenting adults engaging in a relationship where there's a dominant and a submissive and possibly even abuse is they have discussed it they have consented to it they have safety words in place to stop it when it becomes uncomfortable. It is not the same thing as a rape or sexual assault.
BDSM isn't rape when it was consented to. Bestiality isn't rape when it is consented to. Animals have body language and vocalizations which can be used to communicate, and failing those action. A safe word only needs to be agreed upon when roleplaying non-consent because when said roleplay is not involved the safe word is "no". If the humans don't share a common language: body language such as frowning, angry yelling, pushing away, slapping, or running away cannot be misinterpreted.
Just as I believe there is no way to accidentally rape a human even if you don't speak the same language I believe there is no way to accidentally rape a domesticated animal. There is an exception in both cases: if the animal/person has been viciously conditioned to never object to anything. That is very atypical. People don't call animals "stubborn" because they are unfailingly cooperative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
What is your stance on rape first of all? If you are willing to make arguments that bestiality is not the same thing I assume you do not support it correct? Correct me if I am wrong.I do not want to engage in a semantics conversation with you, more an debate of ideas. Before we start this discussion could you explain in your own words what your stance on rape is and why it is or isn't "wrong".
The fruitless semantic discussions are what occurs when you don't precisely define what you're talking about.
If you are willing to make arguments that bestiality is not the same thing I assume you do not support it correct?
I really don't know what an amoral meaning of "support" would be in this context.
I believe in an objective universal morality that (if pushed) could be condensed to single words like "liberty" or "consent" (they are avatars of the same concept). So I don't support non-consent, ever. The only time I ever encourage ignoring someone's consent is to prevent them from ignoring consent themselves. i.e. punishment/justice.
bestiality is not the same thing
It's definitely not the same thing, it has different definition. There are three possibilities (from the classic venn diagram):
All rape is bestiality
All bestiality is rape <- the real contention
Some rape is bestiality, some bestiality is rape <- I agree
They would only be the same thing if all rape is bestiality and all bestiality is rape (at the same time).
could you explain in your own words what your stance on rape is
You didn't actually ask for a definition of rape, I can't tell you my stance on [undefined].
Rape is sexual intercourse where at least one being possessing a discernible autonomous will at some point in its existence does not provide implied or express consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
It is a con.
Con implies deception.
All you have is the debate and every response you get legitimises you.
Debate does legitimize the truth over falsehood. I don't gain legitimacy my beliefs do.
Humanity's got to the truth about you already.
Like they got to the truth about gays and jews before. You should learn to speak for yourself and not humanity, that's a dangerously incorrect notion to have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
When I last discussed this with you on DDO I believe that's about where our conversation on this topic had stagnated. I accepted your argument that "we do worse thing to animals all the time".I don't think I ever remained convinced that it wasn't essentially rape though, more just so that you were saying it should be okay because other worse things are accepted by society.
One can make arguments within the scope of a framework of premises that one does not personally hold. For instance an atheist can make arguments to Christians based on the bible, even if those Christians refuse to entertain the idea that the bible is not entirely and essentially correct.
If you think "rape" is as subjective as morality there is nothing more to say. If you believe you can define it and its predicated concepts objectively and consistently with the common understanding, I would show you that bestiality is not necessarily rape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I will continue to hold that animals cannot consent.
Do you believe you can prove that to be the case with a specific definition of consent? If you can will the rest of your world-view survive the definition and its implications?
They also in general do not breed for pleasure you have to be in heat in order to attract a male species.
The animal kingdom is vast. It includes worms and humans so there are very few generalizations. Worms don't breed for pleasure I'll grant. Humans do I assume you'll admit.
The question you then pose is which animals breed for pleasure.
I reject the formulation, it implies binary motivations [mechanistic vs willful] which do not accurately predict the behavior of intelligent animals. We need only look at ourselves to see how primordial pheromones/hormones interact with learned behavior and adaptive intelligence.
Humans have sex at will
We certainly do, but why do we have sex at will?
Does it send nerve signals to our brain which register as pleasure and therefore motivate us to engage in it? Yes.
Is that objectively true of a horse or a dog? Yes.
Are we influenced by pheromones & hormones which ratchet up our instincts, what we call "horny" and thus motivate us to get into situations where sex may occur? Yes.
Is it not the simplest explanation that animals whom (relatively speaking) broke off from our evolutionary line recently operate the same way? We need only imagine heat cycles as exaggerated versions of our own cycles to explain what we observe.
Not only that, but evidence makes it impossible to believe that pheromones alone are a necessary or sufficient cause of sexual behavior in higher animals:
A sufficiently violent female will not be approached by a male who has been hurt too many times, even during heat. The males learned and they decided. That indicates urges but not clockwork.
Males will mate with other males, males don't produce heat pheromones, and even if a female was nearby clearly the pheromones aren't target specific.
Pheromones make them horny, once they learn it feels good, they'll do again without the pheromones. Not only that but they prefer friends to strangers. Just like humans; It all makes perfect sense provided you look at the facts objectively.
so I do not believe that animals and people were meant to engage in sexual acts at all together.
"meant" implies an intention. There is only the pseudo-intention of evolution, and clearly neither bestiality nor condoms are intended in that sense.
Fellatio isn't meant to happen, but it works and that's what matters.
And I think that anyone that finds an animal attractive has something seriously wrong with them
What is that thing?
they are on the same level as a pedophile.
You could say they are on the same level as Hitler but that would not defeat a single argument.
There is an inherent element of dominance and the degradation of the victim on the receiving end that makes it unattractive as possible.
Some people definitely do roleplay in their own minds, but that is not inherent.
Even in the BDSM community there is a level of consent and a level of restraint.
You make assumptions about the typical act of bestiality and its participants, but it doesn't really matter to the core of the issue. Neither the law or morality have any sane application based on arbitrary groups of people. You deal with categorized behavior. Condemning some types of behavior and not others.
In the BDSM community you say a "level of consent" a "level of restraint", the average "level" thereof is meaningless in moral calculus. If there is no consent in one particular instance that is a problem. If there is consent there is not a problem. You can't say "too many BDSM stuff is done with insufficient consent therefore you (specific person who did nothing wrong) aren't allowed to consent anymore"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
@badger
1. Bestiality is not inherently immoralThat's true if you are a Christian.
It's true regardless. The bible as often published is ambiguous on the issue since god first suggested every form of bestiality before Adam objected (Genesis), yet later it is forbidden to lay with a beast in Leviticus. You could be saying that since Christians believe all morality flows from the will of god none of it is inherent, I find that understanding of the word "inherent" oblique.
You're a creep dude and you know it.
I do not know that.
A hyper-anonymous profile
Yes
your only attempt at being accepted into polite society conning internet dummies about "freedom" and "truth".
It is my only attempt and the only attempt I can make. It is however not a con.
The world will forever think you're a freak.
Forever is a long time. Unlike previous history these posts may well endure uncorrupted for thousands of generations. I will probably die before it happens but I would be extremely surprised if some future generation does not see my beliefs as innovative and my sexual orientation as harmless. They may of course find the cause of sexual deviancy and correct it though.
Do fuck off.
No
Created:
I can list them but they will seem like I'm just parroting experts on the matter who agree that he shows many tendencies that indicate that he's psychopathic and/or narcissistic.
No need to list them. I tend to be disinterested in raw assertions no matter who makes them. I listen to everything but I don't claim to have firm knowledge without objective basis, which in the context of politics and world events usually requires that some party/person essentially admit all the premises required to form a conclusion.
I have been watching the propaganda from both sides and I believe the only way to come to your position is to only watch/trust the propaganda from one side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I am not going to morally defend dog fvcking, like I am not going to morally defend the torture of animals in factories before we eat them. Hunting for survival is one thing but mass torture of our food is probably worse than someone screwing an animal. I don't like either of them, but I'd rather just acknowledge that morality is non-existent, and still enjoy a cheeseburger and not think about what went into making that burger happen.
Unfortunately I can't craft a moral argument in the face of the proposition that "morality is non-existent".
If that was really true then nothing is worse or better and the statement:
mass torture of our food is probably worse than someone screwing an animal.
Has no concrete meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I have zero interest in being on the same site as some dude arguing for fucking his dog. That's 4chan shit. It's ugly humanity and not needed in my day.
As we all know society progresses primarily by not challenging preconceptions and firmly entrenching ourselves in emotional prejudice. Carry on sir! May I suggest not bringing topics you are uninterested in up if you don't want to hear about them?
I don't know how that's a here we go again, dude. I don't know what moral good you think you're championing here or what argument of his swayed you, but the dude fucks his dog. You dismiss these weirdos out of hand always or you're also a weirdo. Being a debater doesn't save you.
Guilt by association, another sound and ancient principle. Never let those philosopher wierdos confuse you with their so called "reason".
Created:
Posted in:
I honestly wasn't going to post this first thing but as is often the case some people just need to have their say, that's not going to change, and better here than derailing other topics.
I maintain that:
1. Bestiality is not inherently immoral
2. Anything which is not inherently immoral should not be illegal.
I'll respond to relevant arguments against those assertions. I have no burden of proof for the first statement, I do for the second and will provide an argument upon request.
Created:
Yes well Russians post videos of Ukrainians magically converting after capture as well.
More specifically how do you know this:
Putin is a high functioning psychopath (I don't even believe he's a sociopath, I think it's genuine psychopathy). You need to truly understand this. He does not feel emotions deep, his 'human and kind side' is a carefully constructed act.
It seems like something it would be very difficult to know and therefore reeks of irrational hatred. Isn't starting a war enough? Does he have to be the son of satan as well?
Created:
How did RationalMadman learn all this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
YYW can be extremely stubborn and will probably never admit he is wrong, so I don't imagine this went anywhere.
It wasn't "admit you're wrong or leave" it was "debate him or leave him alone". In YYW's state of mind though even what you would call a restraining order around here might seem like admitting he was wrong. His position was that if you're disgusted enough you don't need an argument. Which as I said at the time and maintain today is an extraordinarily questionable thing for a self-professed homosexual to say. Privilege is quickly taken for granted and history is quickly forgotten.
I don't know if airmax ever actually delivered the ultimatum though.
I guess my only difference of opinion with you would be whether it is justifiable for you to be angry that action wasn't taken against YYW.
I was angry that I was promised one thing and then without any breach on my part was reneged upon and treated unequally in the end. It was the unequal censorship that broke the camel's back. I didn't ask for anything to be done to YYW, airmax essentially came up with the scheme in order to get me to stop responding to YYW. My skin was more than thick enough and I was content in defending myself without moderator force.
He tends to think his own opinions and morals are the one and only objective truth.
So do I, but I know there must always be a reason. Absolutism without deductive logic really is the worst.
If Max did nothing in this situation, that's probably the exact measure I would have supported him taking ...
Same
... Maybe he should have been better at communicating that this was his chosen method
It certainly was not, he deleted posts and threads. That's not nothing.
I think moderation action against you is unlikely. Wylted usually says way more controversial things
Well "controversial" was never an stable property of any given assertion, I just saw a story that people are calling for Tulsi Gabbard to be arrested for talking about labs. The social contract is falling apart in the west. It's bound to be mirrored here and everywhere else. The question is how it's handled. You're saying it's handled well, I'll take your word on it for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Barney
The point being that said rule has barely been used, and clearly not abused. Your fear that we are using it to oppress homosexuals, is quite simply unwarranted.It is admittedly non-specific. As it's written in English, you could look at overlapping laws for English speaking nations... Again, in however many years, it's only been directly used for a single ban.
This is missing the point. "fear that we are using it to oppress homosexuals" no I don't fear that because that kind of oppression is out of fashion at the moment. It was an example of how it would be quite impossible protect the laws of every polity in the world from criticism without contradiction.
If fear that you or someone else will use the mentioned sections of the CoC as an excuse to suppress only those opinions which are fashionable to suppress and thereby deprive posters of equal protection under the CoC.
You seem to think a record of not doing that completely invalidates my point: "...used for a single ban." It does count against my impression of a "ban-happy culture" but it supports my point about arbitrary power. It is entirely implausible that was the only case where someone promoted activity illegal in some anglophone country.
I didn't realize this was your first day on the internet... Welcome to the world wide web! As should be evident when you made your first post and it was immediately visible, moderators do not pre-approve user generated content before it is visible. This is true on nearly every social website available.
Again you're missing the point. What you just said could only possibly have relevance if you're claiming that this debate does promote criminal activity, is a violation of the CoC, and will now be removed by yourself.
If the claim is that it does violate the CoC but you're letting it stand because of personal discretion that is naked arbitrary power.
If the claim is that it does not violate the CoC then "promote" in the CoC has an unusual and specific meaning that precludes any member from knowing beforehand what is against the rules and what is not.
What did he lie to you about? Airmax seems to fit your standards of laissez faire mentality, not sure why you would dis-approve of him as a president. That said, he is not a moderator here. His role as president allows him to advise mods however. And I think his only agenda would be to push towards less strict banning towards speech. Of which I don't believe we've had any recent issues since I've been making a big stink about it to the mods the past few years and they seem to finally be listening.
It is a long story. In brief I was being harassed by a certain member on DDO, that person was trying to get me banned so he was constantly reporting me among other things. Since I so clearly err on the side of freedom I did not report him (at first). I maintained a catalog of contradictions, a condensed and satirical history of his harassment, and always responded to his derailments by challenging him to a debate and or reposting that condensation.
Airmax got involved and asked what I wanted from this guy, I said I just wanted him to make an argument to support his claims (which was the truth). Airmax said he would force that to happen (or else insist the harasser leave me alone), I was surprised; it was an unusual thing for a moderator to say. Lots of other things happened but basically he reneged on that. Instead he ended up saying that I would have to ignore the harasser, removed my posts/thread detailing the harassment but refused to remove the harassment itself (which would have been a bit of a job, it was everywhere for like 2 years).
"Lie" perhaps was too strong a word, made promises he couldn't keep certainly; but at the same time it seems very unlikely that he couldn't follow through on what he said he would do and much more likely that he was overwhelmed by the job and simply told me whatever he thought I wanted to hear in the hopes that the whole situation would go away... that would be a lie.
As for his "laissez faire mentality" maybe he changed, maybe he learned from what happened on DDO. Certainly if he had been laissez faire in the the described situation I would have found no fault in him.
If you are talking about bsh, yeah that situation was dumb as hell lol. That was mostly Annie (esocialbookwarm from DDO) who apparently became "woke" and a huge cancel culture personality and Coal (YYW from DDO) who is bsh's ex, and obvious has previous beef with bsh.
At the risk of devolving into a nasty gossiper the idea that Coal/YYW would marry someone and then come to hate them so much that he would try and ruin him online with slander does not surprise me even in the slightest. In his case truly: hater is going to hate.
I also think mods being self selected by peers is kind of unfair. That said I am happy with whiteflame as head mod because he will at least give lengthy responses to justify an action, and is usually well reasoned. And I haven't seen him make a controversial decision as of yet.
If you'll forgive a long-winded answer: I have a very concrete moral theory and there is a line of implications from it that I have found very enlightening. First is that good and evil are in the act not the actor. An actor is only evil insofar as they tend towards doing evil compared to others. Only good insofar as they tend towards doing good compared to others. Applying that to authority structures good and evil are not in the form of government, a government is good only insofar as it tends to do good etc...
A god-emperor with a sound moral framework and the integrity to stick with it is better than a deranged and unjust mob voting.
This is often a difference without a distinction, but sometimes you run into people who have been indoctrinated by the traditional "My allegiance is to democracy" types. One need only ask if they would go along with the majority if they decided to eat your children to cut to the truth of the matter.
So you think this particular oligarchy is virtuous, as I just implied it is possible do to the right thing while simultaneously being unaccountable. For now it's not like any other forum is better. I'll probably post sometime, see if a witchhunt forms and how the system handles it if it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Progress toward democracy is IMO a large step in the right direction, even if not carried out all at once. That said, the site is privately owned, so power will always stem from the owner.
Well perhaps with the lightning network a decentralized forum in the near future is plausible. The question is whether separate intellectual spheres, one free and one curated can co-exist forever. Historically isolated discourse is a prerequisite for war but it may not be a sufficient cause alone.
5) I read the Code of Conduct:If a user promotes criminal activity, moderation shall:Criminal activity in what country?You can see in the Public Moderation Log exactly how this has been enforced. There was one case of it (which was covered by other rules anyways), in which someone threatened the family of another member so had to be banned. Overlapping with this, when someone wanted to recruit for the KKK, we banned them.
I found the example you refer to:
It is in fact the only mention of the criminal part I can find, yet still that does not answer the question. Criminal activity in what country? Is it illegal to threaten people where I live? Yes. In almost every country? Yes.
Slavery is also illegal where I live and in most countries, yet https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men was not censored. You may say "well that shows how much leeway we give" but as I implied above that is the stuff of which tyranny is made.
e.g. When the speed limit is below what everyone drives and the cops have full discretion to enforce or not enforce you can get racial profiling. If every single person suffered the consequences of speeding there would be enormous outcry to increase the limit until almost everyone was comfortable, and then cops could not pull over minorities using that as an excuse. It is the overbroad law combined with discretion that allows petty tyranny to fester.
Cops are all too happy to boast about how easy going they are, oh how it strokes the ego to know you have power but don't abuse it... until you're angry or disgusted that is. "But I wouldn't unless you really deserved it" is the response of the petty tyrant, the true public servant desires no discretion so that the law may be perfected and temptation to tyranny is minimized.
Some things that are entirely legal where I live:
Making any argument whatsoever, even arguments that the law should change.
Recruiting for the KKK
You condensed the point leaving out the SPLC yet included recruiting for the KKK as an example of previous moderation. Presumably recruiting for the KKK would not be illegal activity so it must be "promoting hate", do you really need the SPLC to tell you the KKK is a hate group? The SPLC in this context is being used exactly as it is intended to be used, as a means to poison the well while shirking the responsibility for defending an equivalence.
Best: Don't censor "hate", censor non-argument if you're worried about spam
Second Best: Define hate precisely and objectively before banning it
Second Worst: Ban "hate" and decide for yourself what hate is (you will anyway)
Worst: Ban "hate" and outsource the responsibility of defining "hate" to a slanderous partisan organization... while at the same time no doubt feeling free to extend the definition of "hate" beyond what the SPLC may assert.
It was predicted ten years ago and the slippery slope is quite real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually it's hosted in Russia (yes, that is the genuine claim by the admin).
In that case the possibility that your avatar pic is in violation of "the" law just skyrocketed.
It's a grudge, sure,
If someone wanted to see it that way
against somebody whose first post on the website and introduction is basically a bitch and moan that he's afraid to not be allowed to post about sexually molesting animals
Oh but it wasn't, once again I remind you that you brought it up.
When I tell you to get some self respect, I am talking about wanting to be able to read what you posted, two weeks later and at worst cringe at it but not hate that you posted it. I'm talking from a perspective of warning and concern, not about telling you that you have no self-respect. What happens over time to a chronic troll is that they get lost in the character and the motive becomes to wind people up as the end-goal and the debating's just the means, never let it be that for you it's not a healthy path.
The ADOL avatar is the most genuine representation of my true character and beliefs that exists. I'm not lost in anything, you can bill my insurance for the therapy.
Children can come across this website, do you genuinely want them to honestly believe that it's okay to molest their housepet?
Do you want the children to honestly believe: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men ?
Do you want children to honestly believe: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3338-february-tournament-2022-the-majority-of-the-world-is-better-thanks-to-covid ?
Oh how about this one: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3329-some-races-are-bad-for-society ?
The age restriction on this site is 13 years old. Let me tell you something that is completely obvious to someone who hasn't been trolling for so long they've lost themselves: Any 13 year old surfing the web in 2022 has already found porn of their particular interest. Their minds won't be shattered by abstract references to sexual behavior (in this case brought up by you).
Indeed you seem to be completely aware that 13 year olds are aware of sex in general and in fact ought to be informed of the pure science of it by puberty https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7392-can-t-say-gay-bill?page=1&post_number=3:
I think parents have a responsibility to teach their children about sex and that teachers need only teach the basic biological facts about the time kids hit puberty.
If they are utterly incapable of forming rational opinions or evaluating propositions critically... they may fit right in.
Or perhaps you're "whining" , "bitching", and "moaning" because you're "afraid" that, unlike the three debates I've just linked to, you and others couldn't provide a convincing counter-argument sufficient to ¡save the children!
This is cliche to mention, but it's also true: Those with stronger arguments have nothing to fear from the arguments of others. Indoctrination and debate are opposites and the most ready distinguishing factor is censorship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
All you did was come and whine and moan about this website. I assure you this isn't simply DDO version 2, it's freer here.It was easy to get banned on DDO, you just had to piss off the popular members. You could obey the rules and still get banned, meanwhile you could act like Wylted and Imabench and stay continually only temp-banned and unbanned so long as you kept the popular members happy with you.
Perhaps, but if it is so it is only by the good graces of these moderators. The rules here are no more precise nor does the election mechanic have any such consequence as implied by:
To meet the highest standards of content quality, a team of community-approved moderators works day and night to make sure that intellectual discussions stay intellectual
You say "obey the rules" but the rules aren't precisely defined so it is impossible to obey the rules if the mods don't want to see your behavior as obeying the rules.
For instance when you brought up my previous debates on different site with the sole intention of character assassination and further implied I was not "respectable", had no "self-respect", was "lonely", and engaged in "molesting"
That could be interpreted as violating the rule against:
obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges
The approach here is different but if you keep going around posting pro-besitality bullshit, you are bound to find yourself in legal trouble not just issues with the website.
The chances that this site is primarily hosted within the united states or a country with similar speech laws is extremely high. At least until some more supreme court stacking goes on: The 1st amendment's position on publishing any earnest argument whatsoever is absolutely clear: it's legal, in fact it is as illegal as possible for any governing body from an HOA to the federal government to try and make it illegal. So no I won't find myself in legal trouble except insofar as the real life version of mods ignore the rules.
It is also especially ironic that you're warning me [for my own sake of course] to stop going around posting pro-bestiality "bullshit" when you on your own initiative brought up the subject. No doubt I would have given time, but you couldn't wait.
Keep in mind I am not saying you broke those rules, I am saying that a prejudiced mod could claim that and what little I have seen so far does not speak to objective moderation. Nor have your insults, dismissals, and baseless 'warnings' done anything to convince me of the general quality of the member-base.
To hammer home my point in the context of your person: An example of some SPLC level of due-diligence would be claiming that your Ukrainian flag is a hate symbol because somebody once saw a nazi-ukrainian flag in a photo. Clearly then you are advocating for violence on the behalf of a hate group.
That's why restricting speech is a true slippery slope, every restriction is another avenue for corruption, power corrupts and anyone given the job of censor is subject to temptation proportional to the vagueness of their mandate. I am certainly not playing devil's advocate in reference to the SPLC, they have been that wrong before and they aren't sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The thing is even in playing devil's advocate how can you seriously tell anyone you know 'oh look how great I debated why to fuck a dog on this website'.
I see your point, see I was thinking things like:
I am only interested in debate as a means to collectively establish truth, that's a serious pursuit not a varsity sport.
but as you point out the things I've been debating are entirely useless for bragging to random members of the public. Silly me!
Get a sense of self respect. You literally would be a more respectable person as a 40 year old virgin than a dogfucker, it really is that simple and straightforward.
My self-respect is based on my own values, not yours and not the misinformed or bigoted public. It is that simple and straightforward.
Humans are one of the only species that enjoy and really want sex in the way that we do.
Like I said, misinformed. But you won't bait me into a debate in the introduction thread. Ask for it and I will debate you in a new thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Or are you genuinely concerned that you can't advocate for hate groups and criminal activity beyond bestiality?
"concerned" isn't quite the right word. "Generally disappointed" would be better. I would be concerned if I invested time, but I don't plan to as I said; at least not without assurances.
When I am not genuine I'm joking, and it's fairly obvious. Since you already seem to have forgotten the point it is not "hate groups" that are the issue, it is what the SPLC or an balkanized moderator calls "hate" that is.
Why did no part of your complaint worry about the fact that you're worried that you can't advocate for fucking your dog here?Isn't that your whole jam?
When rules can mean anything they mean nothing. When you need to know the topic before you decide if you believe in free speech you don't believe in free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
I was summoned here by Lunatic: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5791/post-links/253759
He said my name, and like Voldemort I knew.... because of duckduckgo (it took a year to notice).
I'm probably not going to be very engaged for these reasons:
1) I left DDO because airmax lied to me in the capacity of a moderator (at least that is what I remember) and look he's the president here. This site appears to have so many of the regular posters and authority structures of DDO that I might call it DDO II, and like the world in general it has not grown wiser or freer in the past decade.
2) The thread I linked to is discussing the controversial banning of wylted who was also an asshole on DDO but anywhere that bans you for being an asshole will ban you for serious disagreement too. Yes yes apparently he asked to be banned as some bizzare leaving ritual but before that he was controversially banned.
3) The creator of this thread was also embroiled in a controversy about being a pedophile, no doubt without proof or any relation to his capacity as a mod. Now also gone...
4) I read the Moderation Overview, it appears that the office of president is little more than a thin veneer of democracy painted over the exact same oligarchy every other forum in the world suffers from. Moderators aren't elected, choose themselves (all power flowing from the site owner), judge themselves, can override the president, and remove the president. The pretense of democracy is almost worse than simply admitting that everything is conditional on the whims of the owner like every other site.
5) I read the Code of Conduct:
If a user promotes criminal activity, moderation shall:
Criminal activity in what country? It's illegal to be homosexual in Saudi Arabia. I've seen so many forums put this up there because they think it's a matter of legal liability. It is no such thing. Even within the jurisdiction of the servers who defines "promotes"? If it was inappropriate to debate whether a law should be a law then what exactly are all these legislative bodies in modern republics for?
especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC
Huge red flag, the SPLC is well known to be extremely prejudiced to the point of vile slander. It is a highly partisan attack group disguised as something noble and examples are easily found of their poorly curated list containing people who had to threaten to sue them for slander in order to get themselves off it. It would be no less partisan to let the Daily Wire define your list and the fact that this wasn't very obvious to whoever wrote this code of conduct means their overton window does not reflect the general population much less an objective standard.
If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech
It's something special to stack that many subjective standards in one sentence.
All of this reflects a ban-happy culture and the exact same kind of over-generalized subjective 'law' that petty tyrants rely on online and in real life. In conclusion you think you're special, but you're not. This is more of the same and getting worse.
I am only interested in debate as a means to collectively establish truth, that's a serious pursuit not a varsity sport. I'll not spend hours and hours with the unaccountable threat of all my work being deleted because someone's feelings might be hurt.
So if not to post much why did I create an account? Well on DDO before I left I said people could find me on edeb8.com, well the developer decided to block all Tor nodes and then the site died and that never changed. I won't make the same mistake and leave a calling card at a specific forum. You can email me at [email protected]. I do not check it regularly, maybe once or twice a month.
If nobody responds to this or PMs me on debateart I probably won't check it beyond a month from now.
Created: