Rabid feminism on the front page
-
@Lorne Kates said:
(Also, airline food... What up?)
That's not a pair of phrases I like to see together.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
I was actually most disappointed by the fact that people claim something is right or wrong without an objective reason for such an assertion. I think it's a side effect of post-modernism really. After all, the rational universe itself doesn't have concepts of right and wrong, so saying that personal consent or freedom or lack of pain or whatever is better or worse than anything else is largely irrelevant without a reason why something is better than something else.
I guess I blame modern education, because it apparently has failed to teach people that "right and wrong" really are wholly defined by society, and so those things do change over time. Unless, of course, you believe there is an absolute moral standard - aside from religion, though, there aren't any reasons why such an absolute standard would exist in the first place. That is: you either believe moral standards are arbitrarily created by man, and so can change, or there is some external construct that establishes a moral standard independent of what mankind (or alienkind or whatever) thinks about it.
Simple argument: why is it better for (human) society to keep going into the future rather than die off? For some reason people think that's the ultimate goal - but why? Without religion, why does it matter if we just live it up as much as we can today and let the future generations (if there are any) deal with it later? I've never heard a good argument - if there are any, I'd like to hear them. And by "good argument", I mean one that isn't turtles all the way down.
Of course moral standards are created by man--and change--but so do natural laws and scientific theories. They're about as objective as any bit of human knowledge can be. For a very long time, the core of human morality has been "Do not harm someone who has not harmed another."
Admittedly, we've refined our ability to adhere to it, but this is not some new-fangled ideal. For example, most of the slaveowners in olden times thought they were doing their slaves a favor because they were lesser beings and needed the benefits of being slaves.
As for the feminist thing, it seems less about morality and more about how society structures itself. All societies define some things they allow and some things that are frowned upon. There were powerful women all throughout history, but usually society frowned on women or men stepping outside of their socially-defined gender roles. Of course those roles change, but that's not the same thing as morality.
-
@snoofle said:
Story on Inappropriate Email Forwarding -> Hiring Misstep -> Miscomprehension -> Assumed Antifeminism -> More Miscomprehension -> Rape -> Nazis -> Cave Rape -> [spawn to sidebar ] -> Bestiality -> Mermaids -> Minotaurs -> ???
Wow. Just. Wow.
snif I love you guys.
(BTW, what the hell is "cave rape"?)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
(BTW, what the hell is "cave rape"?)
The full phrase should have been "caveman-on-cavewomen sexual-assault"
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@too_many_usernames said:
Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).
What about the creatures that have a human bottom half on the bottom, and a horse's bottom half on the top?It must be hard to walk around like that.
-
@Ben L. said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Yes, well, life is hard when one has a horse's ass instead of a brain.@too_many_usernames said:
Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).
What about the creatures that have a human bottom half on the bottom, and a horse's bottom half on the top?It must be hard to walk around like that.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@Ben L. said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Yes, well, life is hard when one has a horse's ass instead of a brain.@too_many_usernames said:
Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).
What about the creatures that have a human bottom half on the bottom, and a horse's bottom half on the top?It must be hard to walk around like that.
I'd be concerned about the three foot erections. You could put somebody's eye out!
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Planar said:
Now there were no inter-species acts.
What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?
Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.
They also can't consent to being eaten.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Planar said:
Now there were no inter-species acts.
What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?
Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.
They also can't consent to being eaten.
Legally, you don't need consent to eat something.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@HardwareGeek said:
@Ben L. said:
@HardwareGeek said:
Yes, well, life is hard when one has a horse's ass instead of a brain.@too_many_usernames said:
Blah... I can't remember the name of the creature that has a horse's top half and human bottom half (e.g., the equine version of a minotaur).
What about the creatures that have a human bottom half on the bottom, and a horse's bottom half on the top?It must be hard to walk around like that.
I'd be concerned about the three foot erections. You could put somebody's eye out!
Not that you'd ever know, since you have no sensory organs.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Planar said:
Now there were no inter-species acts.
What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?
Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.
They also can't consent to being eaten.
Legally, you don't need consent to eat something.
Planar didn't ask for what was legal, he asked for the philosophical problem with sex with an animal. Please try to keep up.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Planar said:
Now there were no inter-species acts.
What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?
Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.
They also can't consent to being eaten.
Legally, you don't need consent to eat something.
Planar didn't ask for what was legal, he asked for the philosophical problem with sex with an animal. Please try to keep up.
Philosophically, you don't need consent to eat something.
-
@Ben L. said:
Philosophically, you don't need consent to eat something.
Dude, have you not been following the discussion? Are you just posting to hear your keyboard click?
Planar said "What's the philosophical objection to beastiality." Blakey replied "Animals can't consent to sex," which is true. I replied that animals also can't consent to being eaten, which would seem to be a natural extension of his reasoning.
Get a job, you bum!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Planar said:
Now there were no inter-species acts.
What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?
Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.
They also can't consent to being eaten.
Legally, you don't need consent to eat something.
Planar didn't ask for what was legal, he asked for the philosophical problem with sex with an animal. Please try to keep up.
Philosophically, you don't need consent to eat something.
Dude, have you not been following the discussion? Are you just posting to hear your keyboard click?
Planar said "What's the philosophical objection to beastiality." Blakey replied "Animals can't consent to sex," which is true. I replied that animals also can't consent to being eaten, which would seem to be a natural extension of his reasoning.
Get a job, you bum!
Philosophically, you don't need a bum to consent to blakeyrat's bestiality.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
Philosophically, you don't need consent to eat something.
Dude, have you not been following the discussion? Are you just posting to hear your keyboard
clicktap?FTFY. Remember he's using his mom's iPad (which he calls: "the FAMILY iPad").
-
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
Philosophically, you don't need consent to eat something.
Dude, have you not been following the discussion? Are you just posting to hear your keyboard
clicktap?FTFY. Remember he's using his mom's iPad (which he calls: "the FAMILY iPad").
What? No, I'm using my Chromebook.
-
@Ben L. said:
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
Philosophically, you don't need consent to eat something.
Dude, have you not been following the discussion? Are you just posting to hear your keyboard
clicktap?FTFY. Remember he's using his mom's iPad (which he calls: "the FAMILY iPad").
What? No, I'm using my Chromebook.
Prove it by posting a huge photo (not a screenshot). Also the photo has to include a clear view of a newspaper with today's date and you will get a virtual high five if there is a half-eaten hotpocket leaking its cheese-like content on the newspaper.
-
@Ben L. said:
@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
Philosophically, you don't need consent to eat something.
Dude, have you not been following the discussion? Are you just posting to hear your keyboard
clicktap?FTFY. Remember he's using his mom's iPad (which he calls: "the FAMILY iPad").
What? No, I'm using my Chromebook.
Speak up. I think there's still one person on the forum who doesn't know you have a Chromebook.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
I know there's at least one who doesn't care.What? No, I'm using my Chromebook.
Speak up. I think there's still one person on the forum who doesn't know you have a Chromebook.
-
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
I'm so sorry for you. Must be hard having insensitive erections.I'd be concerned about the three foot erections. You could put somebody's eye out!
Not that you'd ever know, since you have no sensory organs.
@morbiuswilters said:
Speak up. I think there's still one person on the forum who doesn't know you have a Chromebook.
One less now.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@blakeyrat said:
On the other hand: technically, they also can't really dissent (to either).@Planar said:
They also can't consent to being eaten.What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?
Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
BTW, what the hell is "cave rape"?
@ eViLegion said:
@Corinne (Still unregistered) said:
"Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has always been in large financial firms."
Not only is this story boring and weird, but the suggestion that treating women as sexual objects in the workplace could ever possibly be "right" is super offensive.No it isn't.
Or, at least, if you think it is offensive then you're getting angry about the state of history, when the general consensus WAS different. To be offended about a historical cultural difference is a preposterous way to live your life.
Way back in the day, in some places, it was considered acceptable for the local lord to shag the newly wed wife of one of his subjects. Now, no-one is suggesting that is acceptable today, but should you be super offended by some medieval shit that used to go down?
How about back when we had no language, but we did have bone clubs with which we could twat other proto-humans on the head with, so we could drag them back to our cave for an evening of pleasant raping. Is that offensive?...plus various other posts where eViLegion goes on about raping caves. Or something.
-
@dhromed said:
Wow. That's not even enthusiastic feminism, let alone rabid. You're overreacting, you hysterical man. If anything's rabid, it's you starting this thread as if you're completely flabberghasted and so emotionally distraught by the lukewarm expression of opinion that you require immediate consolence by your forum buddies.
This. Also disappointed to see so many other apologists in this thread.
-
@Faxmachinen said:
@dhromed said:
Wow. That's not even enthusiastic feminism, let alone rabid. You're overreacting, you hysterical man. If anything's rabid, it's you starting this thread as if you're completely flabberghasted and so emotionally distraught by the lukewarm expression of opinion that you require immediate consolence by your forum buddies.
This. Also disappointed to see so many other apologists in this thread.
Wuss
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
What? No, I'm using my Chromebook.
Speak up. I think there's still one person on the forum who doesn't know you have a Chromebook.
Oh, he's using a Chromebook?
-
@dhromed said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Ben L. said:
What? No, I'm using my Chromebook.
Speak up. I think there's still one person on the forum who doesn't know you have a Chromebook.
Oh, he's using a Chromebook?
Smart cookie. Only Apple products are better!
-
@PJH said:
@morbiuswilters said:
BTW, what the hell is "cave rape"?
[quote user=" eViLegion"]@Corinne (Still unregistered) said:
"Right or wrong, it's just the way the business side has always been in large financial firms."
Not only is this story boring and weird, but the suggestion that treating women as sexual objects in the workplace could ever possibly be "right" is super offensive.No it isn't.
Or, at least, if you think it is offensive then you're getting angry about the state of history, when the general consensus WAS different. To be offended about a historical cultural difference is a preposterous way to live your life.
Way back in the day, in some places, it was considered acceptable for the local lord to shag the newly wed wife of one of his subjects. Now, no-one is suggesting that is acceptable today, but should you be super offended by some medieval shit that used to go down?
How about back when we had no language, but we did have bone clubs with which we could twat other proto-humans on the head with, so we could drag them back to our cave for an evening of pleasant raping. Is that offensive?...plus various other posts where eViLegion goes on about raping caves. Or something.[/quote]
So if I understand eViLegion's tortured logic, you shouldn't get offended by anything that happened in the past. Which means you can't be offended by anything, because by the time you're cognizant of it it's in the past.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So if I understand eViLegion's tortured logic, you shouldn't get offended by anything that happened in the past.
Cue Hitler.
-
@Faxmachinen said:
@morbiuswilters said:
So if I understand eViLegion's tortured logic, you shouldn't get offended by anything that happened in the past.
Cue Hitler.
If a bulldog tried to hump Hitler's leg, would Hitler consent? What if it were a Rottweiler? What about a rabid Rottweiler? Inquiring minds must know.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
So if I understand eViLegion's tortured logic, you shouldn't get offended by anything that happened in the past. Which means you can't be offended by anything, because by the time you're cognizant of it it's in the past.
Pretty much. I have very little time for the easily offended. They can fuck off, right back up their own mothers cunts. I don't provide any justification for this viewpoint, it is simply what ought to happen.
-
@eViLegion said:
Pretty much. I have very little time for the easily offended. They can fuck off, right back up their own mothers cunts. I don't provide any justification for this viewpoint, it is simply what ought to happen.
I hope you can appreciate how delightfully ironic this is.
-
@eViLegion said:
@morbiuswilters said:
So if I understand eViLegion's tortured logic, you shouldn't get offended by anything that happened in the past. Which means you can't be offended by anything, because by the time you're cognizant of it it's in the past.
Pretty much. I have very little time for the easily offended. They can fuck off, right back up their own mothers cunts. I don't provide any justification for this viewpoint, it is simply what ought to happen.
But your problem isn't just with the "easily offended", but with anyone who is offended at all over anything. You're essentially saying feeling offended isn't a valid response to anything.
(I do agree that "I'm offended" is used too often as an argument in-and-of itself. Being offended is an emotion; it doesn't entitle you to anything and it's not an argument. Saying "I'm offended" shouldn't shut down all discussion and critical thinking, but too often it does.)
-
Goddamnit, I was going to post that Steve Hughes standup about being offended, but it's apparently so popular that it's shown up on the radar and now it's all copyrightblocked everywhere.
-
-
@dhromed said:
Really? First match on google for me was this(1:45), Second(7:48). Third(1:45).Goddamnit, I was going to post that Steve Hughes standup about being offended, but it's apparently so popular that it's shown up on the radar and now it's all copyrightblocked everywhere.
-
I didn't have time to do a deep search beyond youtube.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Planar said:
So it's OK to kill them and eat them, but not to pleasure them sexually? Seriously, I have no desire whatsoever to rub my genitals on any non-human animal, but the idea that bestiality is somehow something that requires the consent of the animal makes no fucking sense at all given the normal way we allow humans to treat/use animals.Now there were no inter-species acts.
What I would like to know is what is the philosophical argument against such acts?
Assuming (foolishly, I expect) that you're serious, the answer is simple: animals can't consent.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Planar said "What's the philosophical objection to beastiality." Blakey replied "Animals can't consent to sex," which is true. I replied that animals also can't consent to being eaten, which would seem to be a natural extension of his reasoning.
I suppose this may be true if you're penetrating the animal. But it seems that initiation is its own form of consent. And an animal could certainly initiate. So it seems that at least in some cases, there is consent.
But when animals have sex in the normal course of their life cycle, how are they consenting? Couldn't they do the same thing with a human? And if you say they are not consenting with other animals, then why does sex with a human require consent? Why are we listening to the guy who assumes that animals need to consent. DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING.
Does the animal need to consent to getting its shots at the vet? To getting spayed or neutered? Of course not. So what's special about sex with a human that requires consent? This is a serious question for a silly discussion.
-
@boomzilla said:
it seems that initiation is its own form of consent.
Right or wrong, you're on shaky legal ground there; probably safer to stick with the shots at the vet argument.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
it seems that initiation is its own form of consent.
Right or wrong, you're on shaky legal ground there; probably safer to stick with the shots at the vet argument.That doesn't seem to have much to do with what I was talking about. Suppose you're swimming with a dolphin, and it gets frisky, and starts having intercourse with you. For your post to make sense, it would have to withdraw its consent somehow, and then you would have to force it to keep penetrating you. And we weren't talking about the law anyways. I guess that was the best you could find in a hurry to make a "right or wrong" joke, so that's OK.
-
@flabdablet said:
@Faxmachinen said:
@morbiuswilters said:
So if I understand eViLegion's tortured logic, you shouldn't get offended by anything that happened in the past.
Cue Hitler.
If a bulldog tried to hump Hitler's leg, would Hitler consent? What if it were a Rottweiler? What about a rabid Rottweiler? Inquiring minds must know.
Hitler was a man and as we all know, you cannot rape a man, because they always consent. You could have a case if it were a very ugly, fat dog.
-
@boomzilla said:
I guess that was the best you could find in a hurry to make a "right or wrong" joke, so that's OK.
BUSTED!
-
@eViLegion said:
Please come here more often and post, because if this is any indication of the quality, we're gonna be in for some real treats! :o)
I come here every day, but it's hard to come up with good questions.
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
LTFYI guess that was the best you could find in a hurry to make a "right or wrong" joke, so that's OK.
BUSTED!
-
@Anonymouse said:
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
LTFYI guess that was the best you could find in a hurry to make a "right or wrong" joke, so that's OK.
BUSTED!the fuck did i just watch
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Anonymouse said:
What passes for Childrens' TV these days, apparently. No wonder they're fucked up.@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
LTFYI guess that was the best you could find in a hurry to make a "right or wrong" joke, so that's OK.
BUSTED!the fuck did i just watch
-
@PJH said:
What passes for Childrens' TV these days, apparently. No wonder they're fucked up.
-
One day I might start watching MLP:FIM. Today won't be that day.
But Dinosaur Train is cool.
-
Dinosaur Train has crappy songs, though. Not as crappy as that one that started this, but not even remotely up to Friendship is Magic levels of quality.
