is it gay to blow a transgender person?

Xurtio · 01-22-2015, 06:20 PM

Allowing fornication with animals would be tricky because it's hard to verify consent. For me, a majority of the time, consent is basically the deal breaker for whether a sexual act is moral or not.

Oriphiel · 01-22-2015, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

well the thread was basically questioning the moral distinction between financially supporting factory farming through the consumption of meat (which is arguably a pretty cruel process) for the sake of pleasing your tastebuds (as you don't really need to eat meat to survive anymore if you live in a developed country and have even a modest income) and having sex with animals for the sake of satiating one's perverse sexual desires. basically, the argument is that i don't believe animals truly do have any real 'rights' to speak of. at least not in any consistent sense. so talking about needing their 'consent' is really quite silly when you think about it. we don't need their consent to murder them or exploit them in a variety of other ways, yet we need their consent to sexually exploit them? it's just a bit silly to me. but i honestly don't really care that much anymore. it was just a thought i had some months ago. i'm not about to march on washington for some pervert's right to **** sheep any time soon. i just get a kick out of questioning cultural taboos.

Yes it's true, laws don't always make sense. For example, marijuana was outlawed for being "dangerous", while alchohol kills far more people each year than marijuana could ever hope to. But strides are being made to crack down on corporate animal cruelty, and companies are being pressured to use more painless methods of slaughtering (as well as more ethical feeding and breeding procedures). Believe me, you're not the only one to notice the hypocrisy in the government trying to prevent animal cruelty while turning a blind eye to horrible corporate practices.

But as for the whole "sex with animals" bit, just drop it. There is no possible way you can communicate with an animal to the level where consent without doubt could be gained. Like I said, it would be taking advantage of them regardless of the circumstances, just like it would be taking advantage of someone who has very low mental capacities (i.e. a serious mental disability) if you had sex with them, even if they came unto you.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-22-2015, 06:29 PM

i don't give a **** about getting an animal's consent, hence why it's not tricky to me. anyway, i will drop it. that argument was dead a long time ago but you weren't here when it was going on so i was clarifying what that thread was all about.

Oriphiel · 01-22-2015, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i don't give a **** about getting an animal's consent, hence why it's not tricky to me. anyway, i will drop it. that argument was dead a long time ago but you seemed to have questions about it so i was clarifying what that thread was all about.

Spoken like a true rapist. I assume you were trying to say something along the lines of "I don't really care about this argument either way, so it doesn't matter to me"?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-22-2015, 06:42 PM

no, i was saying i'm not too concerned about animal rights in general. e.g. i eat beef even though i didn't get the cow's consent first. i don't even have a great reason for doing so. i just like the way it tastes. i wouldn't kill a human being, because i think murder is wrong. but i don't think murder applies to animals. i think ****ing humans against their consent is wrong, cause i value human rights. i don't care about ****ing animals without their consent, because i don't see any good reason to extend human rights to them. hence it is meaningless to me to raise the complaint that it's wrong to **** animals cause you can't get their consent.

i am willing to drop it cause that was another argument from another thread. but you said you wanted to talk about it here so i was clarifying my argument for you. it's cool if you're not convinced by it, though. but i'm also not convinced by the consent objection. unless you're a vegan. in which case it would seem a bit more consistent to me.

GuD · 01-22-2015, 06:44 PM

I think his point from the getgo was that if people are okay with killing and eating animals for selfish reasons why aren't they okay with raping an animal for selfish reasons? Is it really any less morally vacant to **** a sheep than it is to kill and eat it? I'd say both acts are atrocious and that was my argument against him. If I didn't feel that eating meat was wrong then I'd actually agree with him too, it's a pretty solid point.

Xurtio · 01-22-2015, 06:48 PM

I believe that only specific classes of animals can experience suffering. Probably most higher mammals (as they have homologous circuitry to ours associated with suffering) and birds (who evolved parallel to us and developed a lot of similar brain functionality).

I don't think plants, insects, or bacteria have feelings. Reptiles, fish, and amphibians (and other non-mammalian vertebrates) are in more of a difficult place to determine the extent of their conscious experience.

I still eat birds and mammals though, because I can't handle a vegetarian diet psychologically (I have tried).

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-22-2015, 06:49 PM

i can honestly respect WD's stance. i'm just not enough of a saint to live that lifestyle. not today, anyway. maybe some day.

i don't **** animals, either way. but not cause i think it's wrong, just cause personally i don't find them all that attractive. they taste pretty great, though.

edit - correction: i don't **** non-human animals. cause i know one of you pedantic ****s will probably correct me on that semantic point :p

edit 2 - i have been trying to eat more veggies/fruit and less meat, though. mostly cause i've heard too much meat isn't healthy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio

I believe that only specific classes of animals can experience suffering. Probably most higher mammals (as they have homologous circuitry to ours associated with suffering) and birds (who evolved parallel to us and developed a lot of similar brain functionality).

I don't think plants, insects, or bacteria have feelings. Reptiles, fish, and amphibians (and other non-mammalian vertebrates) are in more of a difficult place to determine the extent of their conscious experience.

I still eat birds and mammals though, because I can't handle a vegetarian diet psychologically (I have tried).

so where do you stand on raping fish?

ladyislingering · 01-22-2015, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

so where do you stand on raping fish?

how does someone even put their dick in a fish?

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-22-2015, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladyislingering

how does someone even put their dick in a fish?

oh, it's possible. i've seen pics

edit - how about raping alligators?

View Poll Results: is it gay to blow a transgender person
yes	21	65.63%
no	11	34.38%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

01-22-2015, 06:20 PM	#111 (permalink)
Xurtio Brain Licker Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,083	Allowing fornication with animals would be tricky because it's hard to verify consent. For me, a majority of the time, consent is basically the deal breaker for whether a sexual act is moral or not. __________________ H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

01-22-2015, 06:44 PM	#116 (permalink)
GuD Dude... What? Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,322	I think his point from the getgo was that if people are okay with killing and eating animals for selfish reasons why aren't they okay with raping an animal for selfish reasons? Is it really any less morally vacant to **** a sheep than it is to kill and eat it? I'd say both acts are atrocious and that was my argument against him. If I didn't feel that eating meat was wrong then I'd actually agree with him too, it's a pretty solid point. __________________ I spit bullets in my feet Every time I speak So I write instead And still people want me dead ~msc

01-22-2015, 06:48 PM	#117 (permalink)
Xurtio Brain Licker Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 1,083	I believe that only specific classes of animals can experience suffering. Probably most higher mammals (as they have homologous circuitry to ours associated with suffering) and birds (who evolved parallel to us and developed a lot of similar brain functionality). I don't think plants, insects, or bacteria have feelings. Reptiles, fish, and amphibians (and other non-mammalian vertebrates) are in more of a difficult place to determine the extent of their conscious experience. I still eat birds and mammals though, because I can't handle a vegetarian diet psychologically (I have tried). __________________ H̓̇̅̉yͤ͏mͬ͂ͧn͑̽̽̌ͪ̑͐͟o̴͊̈́͑̇m͛͌̓ͦ̑aͫ̽ͤ̇n̅̎͐̒ͫ͐c̆ͯͫ̋ ̔̃́eͯ͒rͬͬ̄҉

01-22-2015, 06:29 PM	#113 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	i don't give a **** about getting an animal's consent, hence why it's not tricky to me. anyway, i will drop it. that argument was dead a long time ago but you weren't here when it was going on so i was clarifying what that thread was all about.

01-22-2015, 06:42 PM	#115 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	no, i was saying i'm not too concerned about animal rights in general. e.g. i eat beef even though i didn't get the cow's consent first. i don't even have a great reason for doing so. i just like the way it tastes. i wouldn't kill a human being, because i think murder is wrong. but i don't think murder applies to animals. i think **ing humans against their consent is wrong, cause i value human rights. i don't care about ing animals without their consent, because i don't see any good reason to extend human rights to them. hence it is meaningless to me to raise the complaint that it's wrong to ** animals cause you can't get their consent. i am willing to drop it cause that was another argument from another thread. but you said you wanted to talk about it here so i was clarifying my argument for you. it's cool if you're not convinced by it, though. but i'm also not convinced by the consent objection. unless you're a vegan. in which case it would seem a bit more consistent to me.