(cache) anUnkindnessがAdam on Bestialityについて記入したコメント

camtheredditor が 6時間前投稿

あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 3時間前 (57子コメント)

If anyone wants to have an actual discussion on the subject, I'm perfectly willing to defend my controversial opinions. Right now I'm just seeing a lot of "Wow, Adam" without any actual constructive debate or discussion.

Here's the comment I just left on the video in case anyone's wondering:

Thank you for linking to the original video in the description so people can see the full argument, but I do not see why you left out so much of it. I stand by my controversial opinions. I do not believe that sex with animals should be encouraged, but I am wholeheartedly against imprisoning those who have had non-abusive sexual relations with animals. To say that there is no such thing is incredibly ignorant and illogical. Objective reasoning matters more to me than emotional gut responses. I do not believe in putting innocent people in jail just because "Eww, gross.".

[–]SkinnyKid1 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 3時間前 (50子コメント)

[+]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 3時間前 (49子コメント)

[–]swantonist 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]testaccount_2424 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

If animals can't provide consent, then animals cannot consent to each other either. If you believe this, then how is human sexual contact with animals abusive but animal on animal sexual contact isn't?

If a 12 year old starts humping you because he's horny does that mean its ok because he is providing "consent"?

Bringing pedophilia into the argument is the most tiresome and annoying argument in the book. Like I said in the video linked above, there is plenty of documented evidence to support laws against pedophilia. Nobody here is arguing in support of pedophilia. Children can technically provide consent if we're going by definition of verbal confirmation, but we as a society have rightfully decided that a child cannot LEGALLY consent. That is a good thing.

We have all been children. We have all experienced that perspective. We can all say that we would not have wanted to have sexual contact with an adult in our childhood. None of us have ever been adult animals. Don't pretend as though you can speak for them. If my argument was "All animals want sex with humans" then it would be just as stupid as saying "No animals want sex with humans". My argument is that it is possible for an animal to enjoy sex with a human being, and that people should not be jailed for non-abusive sexual relations with animals.

[–]le_sweetie_man 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Ratscave 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]testaccount_2424 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Ratscave 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]fantod_ -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 3時間前 (28子コメント)

[–]YoLookingGood 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (27子コメント)

[–]fantod_ 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (26子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (23子コメント)

[–]chevybow 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 2時間前 (4子コメント)

Animals do not have sufficient intelligence to consent. It is like saying if a 9 year old comes up to you and wants to have sex its okay because they are showing behavior that implies consent since they want what feels good. Animals are acting on purely primal instincts. When it humps someone's leg for example, it is doing it to satisfy its primal instinct for pleasure. It's cognitive abilities do not allow it to comprehend the idea of sex with a human therefore it cannot consent to having sex with a human- similar to reasons why children cannot consent even though sexual contact with one might feel good for them. A small child might allow you to initiate sexual contact in order to satisfy the primal desire for pleasure like a dog might allow it to satisfy the primal desire for pleasure, but in neither circumstance are they cognitively able to consent to sex.

You show no difference between consent from a child and from an animal. It's almost as though you assume animals have minds that are similar to that of an adult and even though they cannot speak our language they can communicate through action- which is incorrect.

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (3子コメント)

If animals do not have sufficient intelligence to consent, then animals cannot consent to each other either. By your logic, human/animal sexual contact is no more abusive than animal/animal sexual contact.

bringing pedophilia into the argument

Here's a link to a response I've already given to that.

Children grow up and experience psychological trauma. There is no such evidence to suggest that consenting adult animals experience anything like that at all. Having traumatizing reservations and repressions about sexual experiences is a human concept. An dog isn't going to start humping some girl and then years later go "Wow, I wonder if I did the right thing. Something about that didn't feel right.". You are literally projecting your own human feelings onto an animal that isn't you. You have never been an adult animal.

[–]chevybow 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

Your argument to pedophilia is bad. I don't care if its the most annoying argument in the book if you can't come up with a good defense against it. Your argument appears to boil down to

"You have never been an adult animal. Do not speak for them".

Which ironically is exactly what you're doing. You're assuming that the neutral position in this debate is to just say "fuck it. We don't know everything there is to being an animal- let's just allow it!". Which is wrong on so many levels. Let's use an example.

Say there is a disease that affects 1 in 4 people. The disease makes them never able to surpass the mental age of 4. When they turn 21(or some other arbitrary age above 18)- should people be allowed to have sex with them? None of us here have been affected by this made up disease so we do not know how they really are and how they really think. Who are you to speak for them? Because of this people should be allowed to have sex with them and should not be jailed for having sex with them.

Do you see where the problem lies? Or do you see nothing wrong with this? Consent implies understanding and you have not yet shown that animals can understand sexual relationships with humans. And for someone that's not an adult animal- you sure are making a lot of assumptions regarding psychological trauma. If there is no evidence to suggest they experience it- why are you disregarding it entirely instead of accepting it as a probable possibility that we must consider until we gather more knowledge about the subject. If we lost all our memories of being children- would it suddenly become okay to fuck them because no psychological trauma once they turn adults?

Your argument about animal to animal sexual contact is irrelevant since we are not talking about (non-human)animal to (non-human)animal sexual contact. But even if you believe its relevant to the debate- I don't think animal/animal sexual contact is consensual either. They are acting on biological instincts necessary for the survival of their species. Since they follow a different set of moral beliefs and since animals are on a different intellectual scale from ourselves- I do not believe we need to punish animals for their sexual encounters with other animals. However, as highly intellectual humans, I believe it is morally wrong to have sex with animals due to their lack of being able to provide consent and as a result believe that other highly intellectual humans should be punished for having sex with a non-consenting party.

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]wreckage88 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 52分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Ratscave 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

How do you determine if an animal is really consenting? Many animals obviously consent to sex with one another, but it's also very obvious that they rape one another as well. It's also obvious that we can't always even tell if they are consenting with one another or not. (What the FUCK is going on with cat's and their barbed dicks?)

If a human began to forcibly rape you, and you chose to genuinely consent to sex with them while they were doing so, aren't they still a rapist?

Animals don't have sexual identities, and they surely don't have as much agency as humans. (Before I even begin this next sentence, I want to make sure that anyone reading this understands that I am NOT accusing anybody of being a pedophile, so don't even fucking start.) Children also lack sexual identities and don't have the same level of agency that adults have, yet they unwittingly do overtly sexual things. There are power dynamics that exist in sexual relationships that become more and more easy to abuse as the age gap widens. That's why it's viewed by many as taboo for even two adults who have a very significant age differences to be in a sexual relationship.

Provided that we both agree that a child has more agency than an animal(they totally do), doesn't it make sense that the gap in power between both man and animal is even wider. I believe that this would mean that the possibility of the relationship being abusive is way more likely. Even if you don't realise you're being abusive. If you don't believe me than just look at everyday pet owners who have never even considered the subject that we're discussing. They do things every day to their pets that they view as perfectly normal which many animal psychologists may say is abusive. It's because this level of uncertainty exists, (regardless of the fact that I also just think it's gross) that I believe what you're arguing in favor of is unethical.

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Ratscave 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]fantod_ 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]fantod_ -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Rectum_for_a_Dream 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (8子コメント)

[–]Rectum_for_a_Dream 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前* (7子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]YoLookingGood 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]mikesicle -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (11子コメント)

How does it work for humans with animals? You can't verbally communicate with them to get consent, so how else do you start then by just performing the act? If you start doing shit to an animal and it backs away, technically you just abused that animal. By how we as a society rule consent, how can an animal ever consent to sex with a human? A small child can rub itself up against something in the same way a dog would, but solely out of curiosity, they arent sexually consenting to that contact are they?

but animals with sex drives clearly don't give a shit about what their fucking and are just doing whatever feels good to them.

Couldnt a pedophile groom a child to where they don't care what they are fucking, they just do it because it feels good?

I'm not trying to antagonize, this whole conversation is so just far away from anything I have ever thought about, I am in a state of complete ignorance and need some insight. This is all very strange to me.

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (10子コメント)

If you touch a dog's genitals and they show signs of discomfort, then you should stop obviously. That alone doesn't constitute as abuse in the same way that rubbing a dog's belly doesn't constitute as abuse. An animal can have plenty of places on their body that they don't want to be touched. If a dog doesn't like being touched on it's ear, you should stop. If would be abuse if you continued doing so after showing signs of discomfort, regardless of where on the body it is.

By how we as a society rule consent, how can an animal ever consent to sex with a human?

Same way animals consent with each other. If consent can only be achieved verbally, then animals can't consent to each other either.

Couldnt a pedophile groom a child to where they don't care what they are fucking, they just do it because it feels good?

Yeah, they could. However, there's plenty of valid, objective reasons as to why we are against that as a society. Here's another comment in the thread where I've already argued against the "bestiality = pedophilia" argument.

[–]mikesicle 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 1時間前 (9子コメント)

I don't think I know, or am capable of knowing, how I feel about this, but thank you for replying and giving me some insight. I really wish this wasn't posted here at all, I didn't think by being a part of this community that I would be faced with a discussion on the ethics of fucking animals.

But to reply to what you said, if you touch a kid inappropriately and it shows signs of discomfort and you stop, it doesnt matter thats still sexual abuse. When dealing with an animal that has even less ability to communicate or imply consent, how is it not abuse? I'm having trouble seeing something like touching a dogs genitals as anything else but molestation.

I think I get what you are saying, I just don't think I can agree with it. The hypocrisy of the meat industry argument I do understand and see what you mean, and that probably makes ME a hypocrite, I just can't bring myself to rationalize sex with animals.

I hope I'm not offending you, I don't want it to sound like I am relating you to a pedophile, it's obvious that you aren't an animal raping deviant and have your own understanding of animal consent, I just don't think I agree with it fully.

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 1時間前 (8子コメント)

But to reply to what you said, if you touch a kid inappropriately and it shows signs of discomfort and you stop, it doesnt matter thats still sexual abuse. When dealing with an animal that has even less ability to communicate or imply consent, how is it not abuse? I'm having trouble seeing something like touching a dogs genitals as anything else but molestation.

Sex with children isn't wrong because of how intelligent they are. It's wrong because we have documented psychological trauma in individuals who have experienced sex with adults as children. There is no such evidence to suggest that an adult animal is even capable of experiencing this.

If there's no evidence of abuse, then why are we throwing people in jail under the guise of protecting against said abuse? How on earth can we rationalize jailing people for abuse that "may or may not have happened"? What ever happened to presumption of innocence? It's like if we jailed the husband of a woman who naturally passed away because he "may or may not" have abused her. Like "Clearly they were married and she never mentioned this abuse, but she's not alive to say one way or the other so we'd better jail him just in case!". It's insane. If you can't provide any evidence that an animal has been abused, then how can we as a society justify jailing a person for it?

When an animal is actually being abused, this debate doesn't even take place. Like, a neglected and starving animal acts dramatically differently than a nurtured, healthy one. There isn't even a debate there. You can't show something like that to a court and be like "Well how can you tell if an animal didn't enjoy being starved?". You can, however do this to sexual contact. Sexual contact is something that animals seek out regardless. It isn't something that they try to avoid when humans aren't involved. A dog that's had its dick sucked isn't going to act any different than a dog that hasn't. You could show a court room samples of dogs who have and haven't had sexual contact with humans and nobody would be able to tell the difference whatsoever. If we can determine that abuse of an animal took place, then jail that person. Unfortunately right now we jail people regardless of whether or not abuse took place.

[–]mikesicle 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 44分前 (5子コメント)

Well, yeah. In the same way that anyone scratching a dog's ear can just say the animal consented. How can you prove that the animal consented?

By your logic we should also jail people for petting animals too then. How do we know the animal wasn't being abused? "A dog looks like it's enjoying itself when it's getting it's belly rubbed, but we should send the owner to jail just in case. I mean, that's where it's nipples are, so it's definitely abuse.".

how the hell do you prove it wasn't abuse? Do you think we are ever going to get to a point where we psychologically evaluate an animal to see if it was abused instead of locking up the person that fucked it?

Apply that same sentence to rubbing a dog's belly and you can see how it doesn't make argumentative sense. We all possess the ability to tell whether or not an animal's experiencing pleasure or displeasure. It's literally that simple.

[–]mikesicle 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 40分前 (2子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]le_sweetie_man 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 28分前 (1子コメント)

Laws are upheld in court. A dog cannot be a witness to it's own enjoyment or pain- I find it hard to imagine a world wherein the law is enforceable in the sense that you are advocating for it.

I don't understand why you keep acting as if beastiality exists only in this innocent sphere. Sure- if I'm petting a dog, and I touch its penis as I'm petting it, I don't think anyone gives a shit. Its the difference between bathing your child and brushing your hand over it's penis as you bathe it and actively molesting a child.

The arguments you make hinge on "if we already do this, therefore it should be okay to do this." There are complex stages to every action. Yeah, our government enlists and pays people to kill other people. That doesn't mean murder should be legal. Just like war is a government regulated, law regulated "industry" where killing people serves to further a goal, so is the animal food industry a regulated industry that kills animals to feed people. It is necessary, in a broad sense, to kill animals and eat them. You can make unrealistic and idealistic arguments on that point if you so choose, but we all know that right now, to feed humans, we have to kill animals. Just like to win wars, we have to kill people.

Where the hell does rape factor into this? You're saying I could rape a dog, and that should be legal? I could sexually penetrate an animal with my body, and as long as it seems cool with it, that should be legal? If you make the argument that it isn't rape, then you are essentially saying having sex with an infant isn't rape- that through some twisted logic, it is "obvious" wether or not a baby consents to being raped? Is it equally obvious that a dog enjoys being bludgeoned with a hammer, as long as it doesn't yelp?

Your argument is built upon logical fallacy, extremely transparent logical fallacy. You claim that your opponents don't make argumentative sense when in reality you're the one EQUIVOCATING sexually abusing animals to killing them for food. You're the one claiming that sexual acts with animals are not inherently abusive- a sex act is a consensual act, and if a dog can express consent, that means a fucking baby could express consent. Legal consent is not "positive response". If I can't sign a paper that says I consent to a sexual act, or verbally affirm that such an act was consensual, I AM NOT PROVIDING CONSENT. Your argument boils down to semantics, fallacy, some twisted vision of what sexual consent means, and has finally, in my mind, has affirmed that you aren't nearly as knowledgable about things as you think you are.

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]ankurama 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 17分前 (0子コメント)

[–]testaccount_2424 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 22分前 (0子コメント)

[+]rjagrandel スコアが基準値未満のコメント-14ポイント-13ポイント-12ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]rjagrandel -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

π Rendered by PID 18234 on app-196 at 2016-04-21 22:06:35.752303+00:00 running 82ea861 country code: JP.

YMS

YourMovieSucks

Welcome

LINKS

RULES

YMS AMA

調停者