Install Res on your pc browser and one of the many edit-delete plugins.
One warning homie, nothing will get wiped in your history that is over a year old. That shit will be somewhere on Reddit forever unless you find them back manually.
It's not actually a time thing, but that >1000 comments part. If you periodically use the scripts they are talking about, you're account will be clean.
Wait, so when you all were telling me to keep myself safe you didn't actually have consideration for my well being and really just wanted me to kill myself? :(
I did it all for the bussy
Come on
The bussy
Come on
So you can take that bussy
And Stick it up your bussy, yeah!
Stick it up your bussy, yeah!
Stick it up your bussy, yeah!
/r/zoophilia/ is fucking gone. The animals are safe!
So naive. How does that link being gone means that zoosexuals will stop to exist and stop from having sex with animals? Also, safe from what? r/zoophilia was not about abusing animals, nobody there supported animal abuse and anyone doing so would get banned.
Yes, I have proof that i have a high IQ. Like I have said many times. I don't care to prove my IQ, even if I where to post the evidence, you people would just claim that the evidence was fake. So, i won't waste my time proving something that I don't care to prove when it would also not prove anything because you people would just deny it.
Dogs literally talk to me. Obviously, they use dog language and not human language.
and want you to fuck them
I want sex with them (not just fuck them) as per my sexual orientation.
but that only adult dogs engage in this behavior.
Correct.
You're defense when accused of being a pedophile is "that's not the topic at hand".
Is a red herring made to derail the topic. But if you want to know, i'm only a cynosexual, I'm not a pedosexual (not that there is anything wrong with being one) if I where a pedosexual I would have no problems in saying it.
Yes they do. For example: If a cat or dog has ever let you pet him, that was a cat/dog that consented to be petted by you. If they reject your petting advances, that was a dog/cat denying consent to be petted. Same logic applies to anything else, from bathing to petting to sex to playing fetch.
I have never admitted to raping dogs. I have say many times that raping dogs is animal abuse. You people are the one who are falsely accusing me of raping dogs.
Can you provide scientific evidence that adult dogs can never use their mating rituals and language to give or deny consent to sex? If you can't prove it, then your claim is a lie, noting but bigoted propaganda.
they could be screaming at you to fucking stop raping them already and you wouldn't know.
I have a degree on dog grooming and dog training. I had to take classes at an university from teachers and 4 of those classes was all about learning dog language. I know dog language fluently. I know very well when a dog is "screaming" that an action that is being done to him is not welcomed.
Me raping a dog accidentally is just impossible. Dogs a will be very clear if they don't want some thing to be done to them.
all you'll hear is woof woof woof
Not really.
So, are you going to admit that your claim that dogs can't consent is bullshit? You have not provided any scientific evidence to support your claim.
The wiki page you linked? That page implies dogs do not have a language, hence the title of "dog communication".
Animals, like dogs, cannot even voluntarily recall memories. Their inability to do so consequentially means they cannot express their thoughts. Animals react to environmental cues. If you actually think their very limited style of expression constitutes a language, or even worse, consent, you need help.
The wiki page you linked? That page implies dogs do not have a language, hence the title of "dog communication"
The page implies nothing, you are assuming without evidence that the page has nothing to do with dog language. maybe you don't know this, but language is used to do COMMUNICATION.
If you want, you can try google and search for: Dog language, and read one of the many thousands of links that explain in detail about dog language.
Animals, like dogs, cannot even voluntarily recall memories.
Citation needed. Hint: If your claim where true, then dogs would be unable to suffer from phobias caused by traumas as they would have no memories of past traumatic experiences. Not they would be able to learn through operant conditioning.
Their inability to do so consequentially means they cannot express their thoughts.
Again, citation needed. You are reaching to conclusions without even proving that your first assumption is factual. You are using circular logic.
Animals react to environmental cues.
Yea, just like humans do.
If you actually think their very limited style of expression constitutes a language, or even worse, consent, you need help.
Their language literally is language. Not my opinion but the opinion of scientists. And again, there is scientific evidence that animals use their language to give or deny consent.
If you wan't understand this, i feel sorry for you, I would tell you to get help but there is no help that can make you intelligent enough to understand simple facts.
The page implies nothing, you are assuming without evidence that the page has nothing to do with dog language. maybe you don't know this, but language is used to do COMMUNICATION.
Doesn't mean expressive communication is language
Citation needed. Hint: If your claim where true, then dogs would be unable to suffer from phobias caused by traumas as they would have no memories of past traumatic experiences. Not they would be able to learn through operant conditioning.
Merlin Donald is a good place to start. What do you not get about "voluntarily"?
Yea, just like humans do.
Humans aren't limited to just environmental cues
Their language literally is language. Not my opinion but the opinion of scientists. And again, there is scientific evidence that animals use their language to give or deny consent.
No there isn't. A four year old child already has more ways of communication than any other animal. Stop fucking your dog.
What kind of language a dog uses? Mainly body language with a bit of verbal language. What kid of communication dogs use? Sounds and body language.
Merlin Donald is a good place to start.
What or where is that? And what does that has to do with my comment?
What do you not get about "voluntarily"?
Context. to what you are replying with that? I don understand the definition of voluntarily. So, what is your point?
Humans aren't limited to just environmental cues
Your point?
No there isn't.
I already presented my evidence that they use language. What evidence do you have to claim that they can't use language? Or you are doing an argumentum ad nauseam? Or wishful thinking fallacy?
A four year old child already has more ways of communication than any other animal.
Citation needed.
Stop fucking your dog.
Can you give one rational, objective, non-bigoted, non-religious reason for why I should listen to your advice?
Did you even try looking for the definition of language?
Language is an essentially contested concept, not a definition. Cherrypicking a dictionary definition is not an argument for your point of view on the concept.
What or where is that? And what does that has to do with my comment?
Look up his wikipage and buy/download his book "Origins of the modern mind". It has everything to do with your comment as it provides everything needed to understand why your positions are unfounded. There are many more authors I'd link for some specifics, but that seems like a waste of time and this book is a catch-all.
Context. to what you are replying with that? I don understand the definition of voluntarily. So, what is your point?
I stated animals are unable to voluntarily access their memories, you replied with some sort of straw-man using trauma's as if I had stated animals lack any recall. Trauma is not an example of voluntary recall, it even illustrates how animal cognitive systems are reactive.
Your point?
Animals are limited to them. They can learn human-made sign language (to a very, very weak degree when compared to a human child) but they cannot create their own.
I already presented my evidence that they use language. What evidence do you have to claim that they can't use language? Or you are doing an argumentum ad nauseam? Or wishful thinking fallacy?
Gave you multiple. Your evidence consists of telling me to google it, a wikipedia page that doesn't support your claims and a dictionary definition.
Citation needed.
Terrence Deacon's "the symbolic species".
Can you give one rational, objective, non-bigoted, non-religious reason for why I should listen to your advice?
I gave you multiple. For plenty of varied reasons, too. But the most important one, IMO, is that you're fucking an animal that, at it's best, can express itself and its consent only to a degree a four year-old human child can do. Even younger actually, because the comparison to a four year old concerns apes, dogs perform worse.
That is without even considering how limited those animals are in their communication and/or expression when compared to that four year old. When you factor that in, it becomes even worse.
Language is an essentially contested concept, not a definition.
I don't understand.
Cherrypicking a dictionary definition is not an argument for your point of view on the concept.
I didn't cherry picked any definition. I literally gave the dictionary definition for the word language when applied to language/communication between living beings. If you mean to use the word language as in a different definition, then what dictionary definition where you using when you used that word? Because the other definitions of language have nothing to do with what we are talking in here.
Look up his wikipage and buy/download his book "Origins of the modern mind". It has everything to do with your comment as it provides everything needed to understand why your positions are unfounded. There are many more authors I'd link for some specifics, but that seems like a waste of time and this book is a catch-all.
I don't have the time to waste. So why don't you save me the time to read a book looking for who knows what and you tell me: Wich of my positions are unfounded and where is the scientific evidence that proves that they are unfounded. After all, you claim that they are unfounded so you must have evidence to prove it.
I stated animals are unable to voluntarily access their memories, you replied with some sort of straw-man using trauma's as if I had stated animals lack any recall. Trauma is not an example of voluntary recall, it even illustrates how animal cognitive systems are reactive.
I also said: "Nor they would be able to learn through operant conditioning" also, you have not proven that accessing to traumatic memories is not done voluntary by animals. Nor proven that animals can't access voluntary to their memories.
And even if those claims of yours where true (so far, we don't know if they are) what is that you want to prove? What is you point?
Animals are limited to them.
Context. What you mean by "them"
They can learn human-made sign language (to a very, very weak degree when compared to a human child) but they cannot create their own.
Yet animals a have their own languages. May be not created on their own but overachieved through natural selection. And again. So what if animals can't create their own language at whim? What is your point?
Gave you multiple.
You have not presented a single piece of evidence that animals can't use language. So I will call bullshit on that.
Your evidence consists of telling me to google it
Yea, you can google "(insert animal name here) language" and you will get millions of results with pages that explains that animal language in detail. Finding evidence that animals have language is a very easy task.
a wikipedia page that doesn't support your claims and a dictionary definition.
Moving the goal post fallacy. A Wikipedia page explaining in detail (along with proper citations) that animals have language proves my point that they have languages. And the dictionary definition of language further proves my point that they have language.
Terrence Deacon's "the symbolic species".
Let me be more specific: SPECIFIC CITATION NEEDED. Cite the piece of text in here along with the evidence that supports your claim that a four year old child already has more ways of communication than any other animal. (FYI: For some one to be able to prove that claim, thy would had to compare every animal on earth with a 4 year old child, I really doubt that some one took the time to make such tests) Common, it is clear that your claim is bullshit, yet you really are going to double down on it? Be my guess.
I gave you multiple.
So far, you have not given any rational, objective, non-bigoted, non-religious reason for why I should listen to your advice. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your claims with evidence and make a point about it.
For plenty of varied reasons, too.
Yet you don't mention them and if you do, you can't prove it.
But the most important one, IMO, is that you're fucking an animal that, at it's best, can express itself and its consent only to a degree a four year-old human child can do. Even younger actually, because the comparison to a four year old concerns apes, dogs perform worse.
You are giving a personal subjective opinion and not stating a fact. Remember, I asked if you have an OBJECTIVE opinion and this is a subjective opinion. So, unless you have a objective reason, I won't listen to your advice.
That is without even considering how limited those animals are in their communication and/or expression when compared to that four year old.
I wanna preface this by apologizing for the needless banter in my previous posts. I solely aim to point you to a some academic resources in related fields so you can better form your conclusions as I am convinced you're making a mistake, and that motivating you to gather more knowledge will help you and your pet.
I don't understand.
I didn't cherry picked any definition. I literally gave the dictionary definition for the word language when applied to language/communication between living beings. If you mean to use the word language as in a different definition, then what dictionary definition where you using when you used that word? Because the other definitions of language have nothing to do with what we are talking in here.
Walter Bryce Gallie coined the term "essentially contested concept" which applies here.
If I recall correctly I checked the Meriam webster if you must know. The point is that us both picking dictionary definitions is a complete waste of time because we'll never agree to the proper definition. Or in in Gallie's point of view, we'll never agree on the 'best' possible way to define the concept of language.
To help explain what an essentially contested concept is, for illustrative purposes, as a total hypothetical example: let's say we both agree a core part of the definition of language is "a means of communication". Let's say we agree this is core to "language", but then you have your own specific way of perfectly defining your concept of language, and I have mine. That's where we disagree to disagree, so to speak. We'll never agree with eachother's specifics as to what exactly is the perfect wat to describe "language". You appealing to one authority in the form of one dictionary definition, and me appealing to another dictionary definition is pointless.
I don't have the time to waste. So why don't you save me the time to read a book looking for who knows what and you tell me: Wich of my positions are unfounded and where is the scientific evidence that proves that they are unfounded. After all, you claim that they are unfounded so you must have evidence to prove it.
All of them, even when excluding our argument about the concept of language. I used the book as a source, which in turn has it's own sources in the form of studies or general consensus in a certain field listed inside. If you're too busy to read a book, which seems improbable to me as someone that travels for business on a daily basis, just say so. That way I know I don't have to waste my time.
I do not quite understand why you'd tell me to google your source and read every single result, yet refuse to read my source? Donald's book is pretty easy to read, and he has youtube video's of speeches/lectures for short summaries aswell.
I also said: "Nor they would be able to learn through operant conditioning" also, you have not proven that accessing to traumatic memories is not done voluntary by animals. Nor proven that animals can't access voluntary to their memories. And even if those claims of yours where true (so far, we don't know if they are) what is that you want to prove? What is you point?
The operant conditioning is animals reacting to cues taught to them by humans, this isn't voluntary recall. Trauma's aren't either, same principle. An environmental cue triggers a traumatic memory, animals cannot voluntarily recall these experiences.
Animals cannot voluntarily access/recall memories, this isn't a controversial statement, it's basic knowledge in related fields. I gave you a source, I strongly suggest you read it even if you disagree with my stance.
Context. What you mean by "them"
They are limited in the sense that they are reactive to external, environmental cues. Once again, this is well documented. I'm not making any extraordinary claims here.
Yet animals a have their own languages. May be not created on their own but overachieved through natural selection. And again. So what if animals can't create their own language at whim? What is your point?
Moving the goal post fallacy. A Wikipedia page explaining in detail (along with proper citations) that animals have language proves my point that they have languages. And the dictionary definition of language further proves my point that they have language
You have not presented a single piece of evidence that animals can't use language. So I will call bullshit on that.
Yea, you can google "(insert animal name here) language" and you will get millions of results with pages that explains that animal language in detail. Finding evidence that animals have language is a very easy task.
Again, with us never going to agree on the 'correct' concept of language, this is quite a useless and time-consuming argument. In any way, shape, or form, the 'languages' animals use are either "instinctive", or taught to them by humans. Even if we agree to equate calling posturing or body language to the definition of language in the linguistic consensus, animals do not learn or create (or have created) this way communicating.
Bare in mind, that if you broading the "definition" of language to such an extent, one could even include the bright coloring of poisonous animals as "animal language". These colors could be argued to be a form of communication in the sense that they send a message to predators (or any other animals).
Even when teaching chimpanzees and other apes a sign language they have yet to show that they can 'master' it, comprehend it as opposed to performing an action on a learned cue and use it to fully express themselves. Simply put, they aren't even capable to use something like pantomime to express themselves.
Moving the goal post fallacy. A Wikipedia page explaining in detail (along with proper citations) that animals have language proves my point that they have languages. And the dictionary definition of language further proves my point that they have language.
Again, let's just drop the debate on the concept of language. It's clearly not going anywhere..
Let me be more specific: SPECIFIC CITATION NEEDED. Cite the piece of text in here along with the evidence that supports your claim that a four year old child already has more ways of communication than any other animal. (FYI: For some one to be able to prove that claim, thy would had to compare every animal on earth with a 4 year old child, I really doubt that some one took the time to make such tests) Common, it is clear that your claim is bullshit, yet you really are going to double down on it? Be my guess.
Terrence's book has the studies in them, the explanations and anything else you might need.
I hope that you do realize there are people dedicating their lifes to finding answers for questions like yours. There are people actively researching what we can teach animals, what their capabilities etc. There are people who do infact take the time to perform studies on this. We have data on how many words human children learn, on average, on a yearly basis, we have data on how and what these children can do with their knowledge/language/communicative skills. We have data from programs where animals are being trained, how animals match up with eachother and with humans.
So far, you have not given any rational, objective, non-bigoted, non-religious reason for why I should listen to your advice. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your claims with evidence and make a point about it.
I don't want you to listen to my advice, that's clearly never going to happen. I want you to use the sources and arguments I gave you to broaden your knowledge and come to your own conclusions and (counter-)arguments.
You are giving a personal subjective opinion and not stating a fact. Remember, I asked if you have an OBJECTIVE opinion and this is a subjective opinion. So, unless you have a objective reason, I won't listen to your advice.
I gave you a source for everything I stated. Read the sources for yourself, I'm not writing my master thesis here...
What limitations?
I gave you the source, and a short summary. Asking me to then cite specifics is frankly not only rude, but lazy on your part.
Can you prove that they have limitations?
Again, I gave you sources, and I am not making extraordinary claims here. I feel like you expect me to be your personal professor in multiple fields... I don't know what more you want from me. If you're not going to read the books for me or for this discussion, read them for your dog. Regardless of your conclusions after reading them, they contain valuable information to improve your relationship (and general knowledge) with your pet and other animals.
I didn't take dog communication classes to rape dogs, I took them as they where part of the curriculum. By the time I took those classes I already new 95% of the things that they tried to teach me. I had learned dog language from online guides way before I took those classes. And the point of learning dog language is to avoid raping/abusing/abusing/harming/distressing a dog during word (or non-work)
Do dogs from different regions speak different dog languages, or is it universal? Does a dog from China speak Chinese-dog-language? Or is it a breed thing, like English Bulldogs speaking English-dog-language? Are there dog language accents, and if so, does my Mexican neighbor's Chihuahua have one?
Do dogs from different regions speak different dog languages, or is it universal?
Universal with small individual variations. You can have 2 Labradors from the same litter and they both may have slightly differences in how they use their language.
It is really nasty... In my eyes that sub is supposed to still be alive... It didn't do anything wrong (in case of animal abuse - it even had rules against it)
I am sure that the most people of zoophillia actually were there for pleasure and what not - but not /r/abusinganimals
Can you provide any evidence at all that you haven't raped a single dog outside of your misinterpreting the mind of another animal? [b]If you can't prove it, then your claim is a lie, and nothing but the sick expression of the mind of dog-raper.
You are the one making the claim your dog can consent, sooooooooo.
I have not made that claim. You can read the comment tree and see that he is the one claiming that dogs can't consent. The burden of proof is on him, not me.
Personally, I think you'll handwave this away because you only think of yourself and your pleasure.
It is clear that you don't understand about the burden of proof.
It is clear that you don't understand human interactions or how to parse human language. You are doing a splitting the sentence fallacy. Your genetics are invalid.
You are using an: Argumentum ad populum. Your argument is invalid.
I wasn't arguing you're a dog rapist because everyone thinks you are (they do though) but that you have the burden of proof for the statement: "dogs can consent to sex with humans"
So far you've just hid behind latin phrases you don't even understand, because you're desperate to justify your selfish pleasures.
I have no made that such claim, at least not in here.
If I say "dogs can't consent" and you take issue with it, you are saying "dogs can consent". But to be honest, I think it's more that you don't care. You know, being a sociopath and all.
Red herring fallacy. Another invalid argument.
Actually your sociopathy is very germane to your dog raping. Cruelty towards animals is a classic sign and I think you should look into getting help.
It is clear that you don't understand human interactions or how to parse human language.
Red herring fallacy. That is not relevant to the debate.
You are doing a splitting the sentence fallacy.
I'm not familiar with that fallacy nor I can find any definitions for it. Can you link me to the definition of that fallacy?
Your genetics are invalid.
Red herring fallacy. That is not relevant to the debate.
I wasn't arguing you're a dog rapist because everyone thinks you are (they do though) but that you have the burden of proof for the statement: "dogs can consent to sex with humans"
If that was your argument from the beginning, why didn't you said that from the beginning? Because you literally did an popularity fallacy. Anyways, yes, if I claim that dogs can consent to sex with humans, I would have the burden of proof to prove it. Can you prove that i have the burden of proof in this thread of comments? Because if i don't have the burden of proof in this thread of comments, then you are doing a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. If you can prove that I have the burden of proof, then I will proceed to provide that evidence.
So far you've just hid behind latin phrases you don't even understand, because you're desperate to justify your selfish pleasures.
Red herring fallacy. And pointing out that your arguments are fallacious is not me hiding, is me pointing out that your arguments are FALLACIOUS thus INVALID. Can you please try making rational/valid arguments?
If I say "dogs can't consent" and you take issue with it, you are saying "dogs can consent".
Yes, I have issues with your claim as I know that your claim is bullshit. Which is why I used the burden of proof on bullshit claims. The person who made the bullshit claim will continue forever to present fallacious evidence to defend a claim because his claim is indefensible or he will admit that their claim was bullshit and that there is no evidence that can prove that his claim is valid/factual. Either way, that is a win for "team zoosexuals".
But to be honest, I think it's more that you don't care. You know, being a sociopath and all. It's all about you, isn't it?
Again, red herring fallacy. Me being (or not being) a sociopath is not relevant to the debate.
Actually your sociopathy is very germane to your dog raping.
You nor anyone has provided any scientific evidence that I'm a dog rapist. And me being or not being a dog rapist is not the topic of the debate, the topic is: Can you provide scientific evidence that adult animals can never use their mating rituals and language to give or deny consent to sex?
Cruelty towards animals is a classic sign
I know that, but again, that is not relevant to the debate.
and I think you should look into getting help.
Again, red herring fallacy. But even then, why should I get help? You don't even have evidence that I'm raping dogs or a sociopath. You telling me to get help is no different from a homophobe telling gay people to get help.
Many countries make a rightful distinction between bestiality and animal abuse. If someone, say, gives oral sex to a horse, I'd really like you to demonstrate proof that it causes any harm to the animal.
shut your fat fucking piehole, you filthy swine. Please do everyone a favor and die in a car crash.
The mods of the sub deleted the comment where the user said they hoped my family would be 'murdered by negroes' at least, but not the one where the user posted a photo of me.
Glad they're getting rid of all the Nazi subreddits but I know for a fact they will ignore all the Stalinist/Maoist subreddits who circlejerk about killing bankers.
I got through half of those links without finding a single comment in the negatives so I'm not sure what you're on about. Unless you were trolling me into checking that claim out. If so, then hats off to you.
Depends if you can agree if subjective morality (shaped by evolution according to Haidt and friends) is rational. I would say it's immoral because of 'sanctity/degradation'.
Sanctity/degradation: This moral foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
Depends if you can agree if subjective morality (shaped by evolution according to Haidt and friends) is rational. I would say it's immoral because of 'sanctity/degradation'.
Aren't you making this more complicated than it should be?
Either he has a rational reason to make an exception or not.
I would say it's immoral because of 'sanctity/degradation'.
That would be an irrational reasons as not everybody thinks that way.
Basically, you are really at high risk of getting some nasty shit by diddling doggos.
List of human diseases according to Wikipedia: 400. That is 400 diseases you can get from fucking a human. A dog an only give a human about 26 zoonosis. Among them are worms and fleas that are a non-issue. The risk of getting sick from a dog is very low, the risk of getting sick from fucking a human is very high, literally millions of humans die each yer to diseases they got from fucking a human. Where you can't find 100 people who die from sex with an animal. So, you may want to fact check your claim, because it is not true that there is a high risk of getting some nasty shit by diddling doggos.
Therefore, ewwwww. It's wrong.
By that logic sex with humans is wrong, as humans spread way more diseases than dogs.
Edit: Also I don't really buy your 'dogs can consent' argument.
Doen't matter if you don't buy it, facts are facts, just like some one who doen't buy the fact that earth is spherical won't change the fact that it is. Feel free to do research on dogs mating rituals and language and watch plenty dog mating videos, if you do that, you will see that they can consent to sex.
Aren't you making this more complicated than it should be?
Morality and rationality are very complex subjects. There are entire fields such as behavioral finance that take the view that nobody acts rationally. I don't think anyone's morality is wholly rational since there is evidence that people make morals judgements and rationalise them after the fact.
That would be an irrational reasons as not everybody thinks that way.
Ah, but people do. Most people tend to think of hygiene as separate from morality in the modern age, but there is a clear theme of sanctity/degradation in every religious text. Granted, people place very different weightings on each of the six moral foundations, but this axis is one of them.
The risk of getting sick from a dog is very low, the risk of getting sick from fucking a human is very high, literally millions of humans die each yer to diseases they got from fucking a human. Where you can't find 100 people who die from sex with an animal.
Far more humans get fucking compared to humans fucking dogs. You need to take exposure into account. (It's not total diseases contracted you should be measuring, it's diseases contracted per unit of exposure that is a better metric.)
So, you may want to fact check your claim, because it is not true that there is a high risk of getting some nasty shit by diddling doggos.
I'm not fully convinced. But if you have research supporting this I will eat a Red Rocket though (in spirit, not IRL).
Doen't matter if you don't buy it, facts are facts, just...
Noooooooooooooope. Dogs can consent is not a fact. Sorry!
but there is a clear theme of sanctity/degradation in every religious text.
Religion = subjective = not rational.
Far more humans get fucking compared to humans fucking dogs.
Doen't change the fact that you can only get like 26 zoonosis from a dog and that almost all those can be avoided if the dog is vacinated/deformed and external parasite free.
Even if the same amount of humans who has zoosex where equal to the amount of humans who fucks humans, the amount of humans who gets sick for fucking humans would be much higher. Humans have way to many infectious diseases that another human can get through sex. That is the fact. It doen't make sense to worry about dog sex when human sex is the main culprit in spreading diseases.
You need to take exposure into account. (It's not total diseases contracted you should be measuring, it's diseases contracted per unit of exposure that is a better metric.)
Humans still win in disease contracted per unit of exposure.
I'm not fully convinced.
You presented no evidence that there is a high risk of infection from dog sex. You are not fully convinced that you did a poor research on the topic? Well, you did a poor research, try again.
But if you have research supporting this
Already point you to the direction fo the evidence. You can easily google how many zoonosis a human can get from a dog and also google how many infectious diseases a human can get from being in contact with a human.
The numbers are around: 26 for dogs 400 for humans.
Dogs can consent is not a fact.
You have not provided any scientific evidence that dogs can't consent. Where all video evidence of dogs having sex shows VISIBLE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of dogs consent to sex. Also, scientific studies of dogs mating rituals explain in detail how dogs consent to sex. Like I said, deny facts all you want, they still remain true even if you don't acknowledge them.
Yeah, but this is where most people get their morality from. You're ignoring the bit where I said I don't think anyone's morality is rational.
Doen't change the fact that you can only get like 26 zoonosis from a dog and that almost all those can be avoided if the dog is vacinated/deformed and external parasite free.
The number of diseases doesn't matter. You still need to use risk per unit of exposure.
Humans still win in disease contracted per unit of exposure.
Any study that shows this?
You presented no evidence that there is a high risk of infection from dog sex. You are not fully convinced that you did a poor research on the topic? Well, you did a poor research, try again.
I'm not that motivated to research dog sex! You are the expert, I know the burden of proof is on me, but you should be able to back it up with something more solid than freaking Wikipedia if you want to convince people.
You have not provided any scientific evidence that dogs can't consent. Where all video evidence of dogs having sex shows VISIBLE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of dogs consent to sex. Also, scientific studies of dogs mating rituals explain in detail how dogs consent to sex. Like I said, deny facts all you want, they still remain true even if you don't acknowledge them.
The number of diseases doesn't matter. You still need to use risk per unit of exposure.
Like I said, humans win on that.
Any study that shows this?
Feel free to google them.
For example, google how often humans get the flue and how easily they get it. Compare that to how often a human gets rabies from a dog.
I'm not that motivated to research dog sex!
Translation: I made claims that i had nothing about and now I'm being corrected because my claims where bullshit.
You are the expert, I know the burden of proof is on me, but you should be able to back it up with something more solid than freaking Wikipedia if you want to convince people.
We don't even need to provide evidence that what we do is acceptable. Just like something is by default legal when there is no laws against it, something is by default acceptable when evidence can't be found of it being unacceptable. Is the antis ob to prove that it is unacceptable and in 20 years of asking them for evidence to support their claims, they are unable to provide any evidence for their claims because their claims are not factual. Just proving that your claims are baseless and non-factual is enough for us to win.
All morality is subjective. There is no objective universal morality. You're really ignoring this point.
How I'm ignoring it?
Where I'm from fucking dogs is illegal though.
And? I ensure you that they have ZERO rational reasons to make it illegal, just like the 80 countries that have gay sex as illegal have zero rational reasons to make it illegal.
You haven't corrected anything, because you've provided zero evidence as well my dude.
Have you ever asked me to prove a claim were I had the burden of proof? If not, then I have not failed at providing evidence. But you have failed at asking for it.
Example/analogy: if I claim that 2+2 = 4 and you don't ask for evidence that this is true, then it is assumed that you acknowledge that 2+2=4.
A single person comment may have several claims, it would take hours to write just one comment if you had to give citations for every single claim presented in that comment. To make the debate faster and less complicated, you should only provide evidence that you think is necessary or when the other person ask for citations because he things the claims is bogus.
You said: > Their subjective irrelevant morality from.
You dismiss what I say as subjective, but it's all subjective IMO. None of it is 'objective' since moral judgements are rationalised after a position is formed.
A single person comment may have several claims, it would take hours to write just one comment if you had to give citations for every single claim presented in that comment. To make the debate faster and less complicated, you should only provide evidence that you think is necessary or when the other person ask for citations because he things the claims is bogus.
Your subject matter is controversial and this gets 'special treatment' w.r.t. the burden of proof. I agree it's not fair, but people will generally be unconvinced otherwise. If you want to convince them you'll need something a little more solid than wiki.
I'll concede this one though, you win and have my blessing to diddle dogs.
I'll concede this one though, you win and have my blessing to diddle dogs.
Thanks.
You dismiss what I say as subjective, but it's all subjective IMO. None of it is 'objective' since moral judgements are rationalised after a position is formed.
I'm talking in objective terms. Mentioning subjective stuff to prove a point, doesn't help at all to prove that point or to disprove my points.
Your subject matter is controversial and this gets 'special treatment' w.r.t. the burden of proof.
Special treatment?
I agree it's not fair, but people will generally be unconvinced otherwise.
If they want evidence that adult animals can consent to sex, all they have to do is ask or research on their own. Sadly, most of them are bias and they only look for evidence that they are right and never for evidence that they are wrong.
If you want to convince them you'll need something a little more solid than wiki.
Convincing them is a bit hard (as the undeniable evidence that they can consent to sex is present in videos of humans having consensual sex with animals and they don't want to look at that evidence) so we conform with them acknowledgment that their claims are not based on any evidence. Them acknowledging that they have no reason to be against zoosex is enough for us to consider it a win.
Let me guess; you don't understand the meaning of that phrase do you?
Sadly, most of them are bias and they only look for evidence that they are right and never for evidence that they are wrong.
And you have proof of this?
Convincing them is a bit hard
By convincing you mean constantly following people around Reddit like a jealous ex and screeching your woefully flawed and factually incorrect statements while believing yourself to be knowledgeable and rational.
as the undeniable evidence that they can consent to sex is present in videos of humans having consensual sex with animals
Just because a video features sexual activity it automatically means consent? Plenty of videos floating around featuring men and women who were being raped, but due to lack of sound of lack or screaming and flailing people assume "Oh this is perfectly innocent." You'll need better evidence.
and they don't want to look at that evidence) so we conform with them acknowledgment that their claims are not based on any evidence.
In most states watching beast porn is a crime punishable with time in prison, not that you'd ever know that. So find a better way to prove your point.
Let me guess; you don't understand the meaning of that phrase do you?
I know what the word means but I don't understands why he is using the word. Why this subject would require special treatment instead of the same treatment as every other topic?
Also, this comment is not about you nor directed to you, so, why are you here?
And you have proof of this?
Yes, in have proof that people who are bias exist. Why you ask? Do you think people who is bias don't exist?
By convincing you mean constantly following people around Reddit like a jealous ex and screeching your woefully flawed and factually incorrect statements while believing yourself to be knowledgeable and rational.
No, by convincing I mean convincing. Do you not know the definition of that word?
Just because a video features sexual activity it automatically means consent?
No. It depends of the context of the sexual activity. If the sexual activity shows rape, then the it means that the video features rape. If the sexual activity shows consent, then the it means that the video features consensual sex.
Plenty of videos floating around featuring men and women who were being raped, but due to lack of sound of lack or screaming and flailing people assume "Oh this is perfectly innocent." You'll need better evidence.
Obviously, I would not provide a video that has no sound as evidence that this is proof that consensual zoosex exist. FYI: If the person or animal is not denying consent to sex and he/she is perfectly able to do it, that is called implied consent to sex.
You'll need better evidence.
Straw man fallacy. You are attacking fallacious evidence that I have not presented and that I would never present as evidence.
In most states watching beast porn is a crime punishable with time in prison, not that you'd ever know that.
Strange, because watching zooporn is not a crime as it doen't involves any victims. So your claim that it is aa crime is clearly bullshit.
Maybe you mean to say that it is illegal? Because something being a crime or illegal are not the same thing. Watching zoosex may be illegal in some places but never criminal.
But Ok, lets assume that zoosex is illegal to watch in some US states, can you cite which states and their respective laws? I'm asking for evidence because I have done research non the topic and I'm not aware of any IS state that has such laws. But who knows, maybe a very new law has made it illegal to watch in a state, though, you said many state, and I find hard to believe that many states would past the same law so recently. So, can you back up your claim with evidence?
So find a better way to prove your point.
Moving the goal post fallacy. A video showing consensual sex between a human and an animal shows undeniable evidence that consensual zoosex HAPPENS. And it is the easier way to prove it beyond doubt.
Just to be clear, I'm still unconvinced. But defeated. ;)
I'm talking in objective terms. Mentioning subjective stuff to prove a point, doesn't help at all to prove that point or to disprove my points.
Morality fundamentally is not objective. I'm not trying to divert away from anything. To be clear, my view is that all morality judgements are subjective. Therefore you have to talk about subjective things here.
Special treatment?
The onus of proof is always yours if you want to convince people.
If they want evidence that adult animals can consent to sex, all they have to do is ask or research on their own. Sadly, most of them are bias and they only look for evidence that they are right and never for evidence that they are wrong.
Sadly, most of them are bias and they only look for evidence that they are right and never for evidence that they are wrong.
Sadly
Eh.
Convincing them is a bit hard (as the undeniable evidence that they can consent to sex is present in videos of humans having consensual sex with animals and they don't want to look at that evidence) so we conform with them acknowledgment that their claims are not based on any evidence. Them acknowledging that they have no reason to be against zoosex is enough for us to consider it a win.
Again, better evidence than wiki links are needed.
The onus of proof is always yours if you want to convince people for this sort of stuff.
That would be a: Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
The onus in on the person making the claim, I didn't made the claims, I only ask the person who made the claim to prove that his claim was true instead of made up bullshit. The person who made the claim (not me) is the one that has the onus.
Eh.
I will try translating.
If they want evidence that adult animals can consent to sex, all they have to do is ask or research on their own.
People can just ask for evidence or find that evidence on their own.
Sadly, most of them are bias and they only look for evidence that they are right and never for evidence that they are wrong. Sadly, most of them are bias and they only look for evidence that they are right and never for evidence that they are wrong.
Most people look for evidence that zoosex is rape and don't try looking for evidence that zoosex is not always rape. They make the false assumption that zoosex is always rape because that is the only thing they look. Is like people who think that global warming is a lie, they only look for evidence that proves their belief and they never seek evidence that their belief may be false.
I would ask how do you know x behavior actually translates to consent, but I don't want to go there.
Anyone can look and read scientific research about almost any animal mating rituals and language, there they can read what language the animal uses to demonstrate consent to sex or denial of consent to sex. Then watching videos of those animals having sex (between them or with humans) it can be seen if the animal is consenting to sex or not.
But on the other point, better evidence than wiki links are needed regarding 'diseases'. People generally demand citations from something other than wiki for way less controversial subjects.
That seems like a moving the goal post fallacy. Unless you can prove that the Wikipedia citations where invalid, then the Wikipedia citations where valid evidence to prove my point.
That would be a: Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
Yeah and I agree, but regardless you can be completely correct on what makes a fallacy and still make an unconvincing arguments simply because people do not actually act like "rational agents" in any context.
You are on the mission to moralise dogsex, your subject will lead people to not care about burden of proof fallacies, so you give the proof.
I agree that it is still a fallacy. I'm not saying it isn't. Not my point.
That seems like a moving the goal post fallacy. Unless you can prove that the Wikipedia citations where invalid, then the Wikipedia citations where valid evidence to prove my point.
This shit though... Holy fuck dude. Literally any and every piece of serious research doesn't cite Wikipedia. You can't use Wiki to make arguments in general, nevermind this stuff. I'm not debating that one.
but then someone else would need to post that on the sub, and then youd need to shoot them, and then someone else would need to post that on the sub...
Nobody is going to go "aw, shucks, /r/zoophilia was shut down, I guess I won't have sex with animals anymore." All this accomplishes is that people will go to other forums with actually dangerous communities, or simply not go to any forum at all and engage in risky zoophiliac sex rather than having a place to give important advice on how to do so safely.
For one it makes it harder for an average user to find an animal fucking community and be influenced. It doesn't do anything about dogfuckers but hopefully keeps them far underground so nobody will ever see them.
They've got a habit of letting everyone know who they are anyway so it's not hard to follow CERTAIN USERS to different subreddits and report them too.
For one it makes it harder for an average user to find an animal fucking community and be influenced.
If you aren't already innately a zoophile, you're not going to have sex with an animal because the idea is completely outlandish to most people.
It doesn't do anything about dogfuckers but hopefully keeps them far underground so nobody will ever see them.
/r/zoophilia pretty much just sticks to /r/zoophilia and meta subreddits that link to us. The banning of /r/zoophilia is going to lead to more animals being harmed in the future because of the destruction of a space where health advice could be exchanged.
We're going to keep having sex with dogs and there's really nothing you can do about that, my dude.
It's so very weird to me that you're proud of that. "Imma keep fuckin' dawgs and yew can't stop meh!" Sit back and consider all the poor life choices you've made that lead you to utter those words and feel any sense of pride in doing so.
Is sex with humans truly that unavailable to you that you must victimize defenseless animals?
Unfortunately
Oh go explore your sexuality deep and hard with a cactus. What a load of horseshit. "You've taken away our safe space, and so now we must begin hurting animals, because we totally weren't before. And it's ALL YOUR FAULT!"
You're a sick asshole. I hope you get caught by a farmer and meet your doom from the business end of a shotgun.
I'd be pretty afraid of an animal rapist's gloves coming off in their dangerous community. Hopefully snellygaster finds it so we can fully enjoy ourselves.
landoflobsters[S,A] 437 points 19 hours ago*
r/watchpeopledie has been reviewed, no plans to remove it for now. However, there are posts within the sub that are borderline so we'll be reaching out to the mod team to clarify the policy with them.
That's what he answered in a different part of this thread about the same question. Our team does fully work with the admins so I imagine they'll tell us which posts of ours are borderline glorifying or inciting violence and we will remove them and update our rules to reflect any new changes to what is and isn't allowed.
This is going to be the best reddit drama in years. Either they enforce the rule and nuke half of the political subs on reddit (left and right), or they continue to be hypocritical fuccbois and ban a tiny fraction of the tankie and nazi sphere leaving the big subreddits (T_D, the fucking 30 dae kil lall whitey subreddits) up and running.
I'm sure the random people who check their messages to see 20 pings from people telling them to off themselves really appreciate the 25 layers of irony
have you ever heard of /r/Nazi before? admins always sweep up a bunch of irrelevant ghost towns with like 200 subscribers in these purges so they seem more substantial than they are
If you think this is something that you want, then you need to go check into some sort of psychiatric evalutation and follow-up care. Make sure you get on the list.
Hey, admins? Loving the post, but I think I may have stumbled on to a community in violation of these rules! See, there's this one subreddit, and I don't blame you for not having heard of them, called The_Donald (with an underscore between "The" and "Donald"). As you can see in this link, have done a racism and also a violence. Please ban them! Thanks! xoxo
Lmao like r/popular. Meant to keep out political subs. Reddit admins did jack shit when a few hundred new anti-Trump subs started shitting up r/popular.
say what you want about the admins, but every time they post something you start to see all those edge case retard questions like "What about debating the politics and morality of the death penalty, either in general or for certain crimes?" all over the place and realize that these are the types of tard children they have to deal with every day.
As bad as admins are, every admin thread reminds me the userbase is all kinds of worse
as always, the admins are just using "violence", "hate speech" or whatever drivel as an excuse to ban discussions and shift the narrative away from truth and into their delusional leftist faggotry
expect to see many right-leaning users and subs banned in the coming days
395 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-10-25
Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 WarSanchez 2017-10-25
Do we pull a Heaven's Gate now?
1 [deleted] 2017-10-25
[deleted]
1 scatmunchies 2017-10-25
Time to castrate yourself. I’ll get the hacksaw.
1 WarSanchez 2017-10-25
Kinky...
Daddy like.
1 Brandon_la_rana 2017-10-25
Reported for violence
1 scatmunchies 2017-10-25
Excuse me, transitioning to a more pure state so that we can ultimately become one with the Gods is the furthest thing from violence.
Keep Yourself Safe in Their name.
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
All Glory To Zeus!!
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-10-25
The proper way to do it is with very strong rubber bands wrapped around the scrotum and testicles.
Over time the flesh dies, withers away and drops off.
1 1MExplodingSuns 2017-10-25
For glory.
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-10-25
Nail clippers are more suited to that job.
1 Redactor0 2017-10-25
Just as long as I don't have to pay for my own shoes & tracksuit.
1 Basically_Trash 2017-10-25
Specific comment thread where this is discussed: https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/78p7bz/update_on_sitewide_rules_regarding_violent_content/dovjjww/
It's all over, I'll never be able to advise people to keep themselves safe again at this rate
1 TheAltRightIsAlright 2017-10-25
All the times I've ironically told people to not continue living seem completely sincere to an outside viewer speculating on my mindset.
...how do you most quickly delete your comment and PM history (on mobile)?
1 Basically_Trash 2017-10-25
Pretty sure there are apps that will do that for you.
Also (un)ironically kys
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
Have to wonder if they're gonna apply it retroactively
If so a bunch of us may be using new accounts soon
1 joris 2017-10-25
Install Res on your pc browser and one of the many edit-delete plugins.
One warning homie, nothing will get wiped in your history that is over a year old. That shit will be somewhere on Reddit forever unless you find them back manually.
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
Technowizards can use PRAW to cycle through comments by age, I think. It might be possible to do a total nuke that way.
1 cimarafa 2017-10-25
None of the automated deletion software/scripts can do more than the last 20 pages/1000 comments.
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
Yeah, listings are 1000 max, but you can use this method to cycle through listings. People use it to do total archives of subs all the time.
1 cimarafa 2017-10-25
Yeah, but no deletion script has it yet, which seems weird if it's so easy.
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
Did some more looking into PRAW commands and it actually looks like it might not be possible for comments. So yeah, you're right.
1 TheAltRightIsAlright 2017-10-25
Thanks very much mane 👌🏻 Guess I still have ~2 months of shitposting to enjoy before I wipe the slate clean
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
It's not actually a time thing, but that >1000 comments part. If you periodically use the scripts they are talking about, you're account will be clean.
1 polddit 2017-10-25
Wait, so when you all were telling me to keep myself safe you didn't actually have consideration for my well being and really just wanted me to kill myself? :(
1 YHofSuburbia 2017-10-25
If they ban kys on r/drama then like what is even the point of this sub any more
1 shitpersonality 2017-10-25
I did it all for the bussy Come on The bussy Come on So you can take that bussy And Stick it up your bussy, yeah! Stick it up your bussy, yeah! Stick it up your bussy, yeah!
1 Eatsnotalot 2017-10-25
Hopefully they'll ban people saying bussy as well.
1 shitpersonality 2017-10-25
DELETE THIS
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
We'll always have bunt and bwat.
1 jet199 2017-10-25
Bagina, but that might be confusing to the Spanish.
1 zahlman 2017-10-25
... How would that even work?
1 edgy_account 2017-10-25
I presume this would be an educated guide on how that works.
1 Assy-McGee 2017-10-25
ASS TO ASS
ASS TO ASS
1 Mort_DeRire 2017-10-25
We'll make up another euphemism
1 chancellorjay 2017-10-25
Korean Youth Squad?
1 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2017-10-25
keep yourself sexy?
Got a little necro vibe to it tho.
1 glmox 2017-10-25
nothing wrong with that
1 Seminal_Sound 2017-10-25
Kiss your strainer
1 panasch 2017-10-25
can we still rally support for the long overdue mayocide?
1 trjb 2017-10-25
It's underway, just look at the subs getting banned.
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
mayocide when
1 ahbslldud 2017-10-25
we need the over/under on this tbh
if i can't tell people to swan dive off the empire state there's no point
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-10-25
Keeping yourself safe will be addressed on a case by case, context is key, basis.
https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/78p7bz/update_on_sitewide_rules_regarding_violent_content/dovjjww/
1 REDDIT_IN_MOTION 2017-10-25
Adopt, adapt, and improve
1 aqouta 2017-10-25
If they ban /r/drama I'll take it as a declaration that I should kms and thus they'll have to ban themselves.
1 FootsiesFetish 2017-10-25
flawless
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
u/aluzky on suicide watch
But seriously can we all report him to the admins now, because he's point blank admitted he rapes dogs, which is clearly animal abuse
1 shanewater 2017-10-25
/r/zoophilia/ is fucking gone. The animals are safe!
1 nunast 2017-10-25
That's awesome! Poor u/aluzky
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Why poor me?
1 WiggityWatchinNews 2017-10-25
Kinda mind blowing that it took this many years.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
So naive. How does that link being gone means that zoosexuals will stop to exist and stop from having sex with animals? Also, safe from what? r/zoophilia was not about abusing animals, nobody there supported animal abuse and anyone doing so would get banned.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
Zoosexuals should be imprisones
1 fayeDragon 2017-10-25
I'd say we should put them down like dogs but they'd probably like that.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Can you give a rational, objective, non-bigoted, non-religious reason for why zoosexuals should be jailed?
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
I believe all rapists should be jailed. Also, do y9u have proof that your IQ is 134 or are you a liar?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I also think that all rapists should be jailed.
Yes, I have proof that i have a high IQ. Like I have said many times. I don't care to prove my IQ, even if I where to post the evidence, you people would just claim that the evidence was fake. So, i won't waste my time proving something that I don't care to prove when it would also not prove anything because you people would just deny it.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
No proof = didn't happen. /u/Aluzky the fraud
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Like I said, feel free to believe that I have a low IQ. Your believing that won't change reality.
1 nunast 2017-10-25
Why do you abuse and rape dogs?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
You are doing a loaded question fallacy.
1 [deleted] 2017-10-25
[deleted]
1 dood98998 2017-10-25
keep yourself safe bro
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Will do. :)
1 Eatsnotalot 2017-10-25
You sick fuck..
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Proud to be.
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
Fucking animals literally isn't animal abuse amirite
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
If the sex is abusive, then it is animal abuse. If the sex is non-abusive then it is not animal abuse.
1 ExilesReturn 2017-10-25
Do animals give consent? If not then that's rape and abuse friendo.
1 Ranilen 2017-10-25
No doubt /u/Aluzky is going to explain how they consent just like little kids.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
The topic is ADULT ANIMALS, not human child.
1 Ranilen 2017-10-25
My takeaways:
(1) You're so delusional you think dogs talk to you and want you to fuck them, but that only adult dogs engage in this behavior.
(2) You're defense when accused of being a pedophile is "that's not the topic at hand".
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Dogs literally talk to me. Obviously, they use dog language and not human language.
I want sex with them (not just fuck them) as per my sexual orientation.
Correct.
Is a red herring made to derail the topic. But if you want to know, i'm only a cynosexual, I'm not a pedosexual (not that there is anything wrong with being one) if I where a pedosexual I would have no problems in saying it.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Yes they do. For example: If a cat or dog has ever let you pet him, that was a cat/dog that consented to be petted by you. If they reject your petting advances, that was a dog/cat denying consent to be petted. Same logic applies to anything else, from bathing to petting to sex to playing fetch.
I agree that sex without consent is rape/abuse.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-10-25
/r/sexwithdogs/ also gone. /u/aluzky is gonna maintain his safety soon
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
> maintain his safety
My fucking sides.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
What?
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
Oh shit that is fucking awesome news!
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I have never admitted to raping dogs. I have say many times that raping dogs is animal abuse. You people are the one who are falsely accusing me of raping dogs.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
Why are you a rapist?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I'm not.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
Okay, but why do you support child rape? Why are you a rapist, /u/Aluzky
1 GirlLover50 2017-10-25
Because /u/Aluzky hates people
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Why do you make loaded question fallacies?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I don't support rape.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
Can you prove that your IQ is 134 or are you a liar?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I can prove it, I don't want to prove it. If you want to think I'm lying, so be it.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
/u/Aluzky lacks the mental powers to post a picture. That, or he's a lying fraud. Which is it?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I have posted several zooporn pictures in the past, what makes you think can't do it again?
I'm not lying nor a fraud.
I already said it, i don't care to prove that I have a high IQ, I gain nothing by wasting my time to prove it.
1 nunast 2017-10-25
Why do you rape dogs?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Loaded question fallacy.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
Why do you rape dogs /u/Aluzky
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Loaded question fallacy.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2017-10-25
I don't know if anyone told you yet, but dogs can't consent.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Can you provide scientific evidence that adult dogs can never use their mating rituals and language to give or deny consent to sex? If you can't prove it, then your claim is a lie, noting but bigoted propaganda.
1 blubski 2017-10-25
Dogs have a language?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_communication
1 twinksteverogers 2017-10-25
you're not a dog, they could be screaming at you to fucking stop raping them already and you wouldn't know. all you'll hear is woof woof woof
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I have never claimed to be one.
I have a degree on dog grooming and dog training. I had to take classes at an university from teachers and 4 of those classes was all about learning dog language. I know dog language fluently. I know very well when a dog is "screaming" that an action that is being done to him is not welcomed.
Me raping a dog accidentally is just impossible. Dogs a will be very clear if they don't want some thing to be done to them.
Not really.
So, are you going to admit that your claim that dogs can't consent is bullshit? You have not provided any scientific evidence to support your claim.
1 Eatsnotalot 2017-10-25
So you're having consensual sex with a dog?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Anyone who has seen my porn has the answer to that question.
1 Eatsnotalot 2017-10-25
Fixed it
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I fixed it again. There was nothing wrong with it. I have never made any rape porn because I have never raped anyone.
1 Eatsnotalot 2017-10-25
https://www.reddit.com/r/modnews/comments/78p7bz/z/dovuocp
Fucking hell you're really suggesting people go vegan even though you rape dogs
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I have never raped dogs.
1 OccasionallyClueless 2017-10-25
o i am laffin
1 tathrowaway666 2017-10-25
Send links for science
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Can't you just google my name?
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2017-10-25
Can you understand the meaning of the word prop?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Yes. I spaced out. Could not remember what the word definition was and the dictionary din't help much.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2017-10-25
Oh, is a dictionary too difficult for you to read now?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Not really. Why are you asking me this?
1 LadySaberCat 2017-10-25
Yet you had difficulty finding the proper definition of a mere word.
Because just about everyone here is used to you having difficulty understanding multiple things.
1 AlphaOmegaSith 2017-10-25
Why do you think?
1 JohnBlind 2017-10-25
Lmao
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
What is funny about those 2 words?
1 JohnBlind 2017-10-25
The fact that there is no dog language
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I already provided scientific evidence that it exists. You are very stupid if you can't understand scientific evidence.
1 JohnBlind 2017-10-25
The wiki page you linked? That page implies dogs do not have a language, hence the title of "dog communication".
Animals, like dogs, cannot even voluntarily recall memories. Their inability to do so consequentially means they cannot express their thoughts. Animals react to environmental cues. If you actually think their very limited style of expression constitutes a language, or even worse, consent, you need help.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
The page implies nothing, you are assuming without evidence that the page has nothing to do with dog language. maybe you don't know this, but language is used to do COMMUNICATION.
If you want, you can try google and search for: Dog language, and read one of the many thousands of links that explain in detail about dog language.
Citation needed. Hint: If your claim where true, then dogs would be unable to suffer from phobias caused by traumas as they would have no memories of past traumatic experiences. Not they would be able to learn through operant conditioning.
Again, citation needed. You are reaching to conclusions without even proving that your first assumption is factual. You are using circular logic.
Yea, just like humans do.
Their language literally is language. Not my opinion but the opinion of scientists. And again, there is scientific evidence that animals use their language to give or deny consent.
If you wan't understand this, i feel sorry for you, I would tell you to get help but there is no help that can make you intelligent enough to understand simple facts.
1 JohnBlind 2017-10-25
Doesn't mean expressive communication is language
Merlin Donald is a good place to start. What do you not get about "voluntarily"?
Humans aren't limited to just environmental cues
No there isn't. A four year old child already has more ways of communication than any other animal. Stop fucking your dog.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Did you even try looking for the definition of language?
"Language definition: A non-verbal method of expression or communication. ‘body language’"* ▬ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/language
And if yu don't know what communization means: "The imparting or exchanging of information by speaking, writing, or using some other medium."▬ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/communization
What kind of language a dog uses? Mainly body language with a bit of verbal language. What kid of communication dogs use? Sounds and body language.
What or where is that? And what does that has to do with my comment?
Context. to what you are replying with that? I don understand the definition of voluntarily. So, what is your point?
Your point?
I already presented my evidence that they use language. What evidence do you have to claim that they can't use language? Or you are doing an argumentum ad nauseam? Or wishful thinking fallacy?
Citation needed.
Can you give one rational, objective, non-bigoted, non-religious reason for why I should listen to your advice?
1 JohnBlind 2017-10-25
Language is an essentially contested concept, not a definition. Cherrypicking a dictionary definition is not an argument for your point of view on the concept.
Look up his wikipage and buy/download his book "Origins of the modern mind". It has everything to do with your comment as it provides everything needed to understand why your positions are unfounded. There are many more authors I'd link for some specifics, but that seems like a waste of time and this book is a catch-all.
I stated animals are unable to voluntarily access their memories, you replied with some sort of straw-man using trauma's as if I had stated animals lack any recall. Trauma is not an example of voluntary recall, it even illustrates how animal cognitive systems are reactive.
Animals are limited to them. They can learn human-made sign language (to a very, very weak degree when compared to a human child) but they cannot create their own.
Gave you multiple. Your evidence consists of telling me to google it, a wikipedia page that doesn't support your claims and a dictionary definition.
Terrence Deacon's "the symbolic species".
I gave you multiple. For plenty of varied reasons, too. But the most important one, IMO, is that you're fucking an animal that, at it's best, can express itself and its consent only to a degree a four year-old human child can do. Even younger actually, because the comparison to a four year old concerns apes, dogs perform worse.
That is without even considering how limited those animals are in their communication and/or expression when compared to that four year old. When you factor that in, it becomes even worse.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I don't understand.
I didn't cherry picked any definition. I literally gave the dictionary definition for the word language when applied to language/communication between living beings. If you mean to use the word language as in a different definition, then what dictionary definition where you using when you used that word? Because the other definitions of language have nothing to do with what we are talking in here.
I don't have the time to waste. So why don't you save me the time to read a book looking for who knows what and you tell me: Wich of my positions are unfounded and where is the scientific evidence that proves that they are unfounded. After all, you claim that they are unfounded so you must have evidence to prove it.
I also said: "Nor they would be able to learn through operant conditioning" also, you have not proven that accessing to traumatic memories is not done voluntary by animals. Nor proven that animals can't access voluntary to their memories.
And even if those claims of yours where true (so far, we don't know if they are) what is that you want to prove? What is you point?
Context. What you mean by "them"
Yet animals a have their own languages. May be not created on their own but overachieved through natural selection. And again. So what if animals can't create their own language at whim? What is your point?
You have not presented a single piece of evidence that animals can't use language. So I will call bullshit on that.
Yea, you can google "(insert animal name here) language" and you will get millions of results with pages that explains that animal language in detail. Finding evidence that animals have language is a very easy task.
Moving the goal post fallacy. A Wikipedia page explaining in detail (along with proper citations) that animals have language proves my point that they have languages. And the dictionary definition of language further proves my point that they have language.
Let me be more specific: SPECIFIC CITATION NEEDED. Cite the piece of text in here along with the evidence that supports your claim that a four year old child already has more ways of communication than any other animal. (FYI: For some one to be able to prove that claim, thy would had to compare every animal on earth with a 4 year old child, I really doubt that some one took the time to make such tests) Common, it is clear that your claim is bullshit, yet you really are going to double down on it? Be my guess.
So far, you have not given any rational, objective, non-bigoted, non-religious reason for why I should listen to your advice. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your claims with evidence and make a point about it.
Yet you don't mention them and if you do, you can't prove it.
You are giving a personal subjective opinion and not stating a fact. Remember, I asked if you have an OBJECTIVE opinion and this is a subjective opinion. So, unless you have a objective reason, I won't listen to your advice.
What limitations?
Can you prove that they have limitations?
1 JohnBlind 2017-10-25
I wanna preface this by apologizing for the needless banter in my previous posts. I solely aim to point you to a some academic resources in related fields so you can better form your conclusions as I am convinced you're making a mistake, and that motivating you to gather more knowledge will help you and your pet.
Walter Bryce Gallie coined the term "essentially contested concept" which applies here.
If I recall correctly I checked the Meriam webster if you must know. The point is that us both picking dictionary definitions is a complete waste of time because we'll never agree to the proper definition. Or in in Gallie's point of view, we'll never agree on the 'best' possible way to define the concept of language.
To help explain what an essentially contested concept is, for illustrative purposes, as a total hypothetical example: let's say we both agree a core part of the definition of language is "a means of communication". Let's say we agree this is core to "language", but then you have your own specific way of perfectly defining your concept of language, and I have mine. That's where we disagree to disagree, so to speak. We'll never agree with eachother's specifics as to what exactly is the perfect wat to describe "language". You appealing to one authority in the form of one dictionary definition, and me appealing to another dictionary definition is pointless.
All of them, even when excluding our argument about the concept of language. I used the book as a source, which in turn has it's own sources in the form of studies or general consensus in a certain field listed inside. If you're too busy to read a book, which seems improbable to me as someone that travels for business on a daily basis, just say so. That way I know I don't have to waste my time.
I do not quite understand why you'd tell me to google your source and read every single result, yet refuse to read my source? Donald's book is pretty easy to read, and he has youtube video's of speeches/lectures for short summaries aswell.
The operant conditioning is animals reacting to cues taught to them by humans, this isn't voluntary recall. Trauma's aren't either, same principle. An environmental cue triggers a traumatic memory, animals cannot voluntarily recall these experiences.
Animals cannot voluntarily access/recall memories, this isn't a controversial statement, it's basic knowledge in related fields. I gave you a source, I strongly suggest you read it even if you disagree with my stance.
They are limited in the sense that they are reactive to external, environmental cues. Once again, this is well documented. I'm not making any extraordinary claims here.
Again, with us never going to agree on the 'correct' concept of language, this is quite a useless and time-consuming argument. In any way, shape, or form, the 'languages' animals use are either "instinctive", or taught to them by humans. Even if we agree to equate calling posturing or body language to the definition of language in the linguistic consensus, animals do not learn or create (or have created) this way communicating.
Bare in mind, that if you broading the "definition" of language to such an extent, one could even include the bright coloring of poisonous animals as "animal language". These colors could be argued to be a form of communication in the sense that they send a message to predators (or any other animals).
Even when teaching chimpanzees and other apes a sign language they have yet to show that they can 'master' it, comprehend it as opposed to performing an action on a learned cue and use it to fully express themselves. Simply put, they aren't even capable to use something like pantomime to express themselves.
Again, let's just drop the debate on the concept of language. It's clearly not going anywhere..
Terrence's book has the studies in them, the explanations and anything else you might need.
I hope that you do realize there are people dedicating their lifes to finding answers for questions like yours. There are people actively researching what we can teach animals, what their capabilities etc. There are people who do infact take the time to perform studies on this. We have data on how many words human children learn, on average, on a yearly basis, we have data on how and what these children can do with their knowledge/language/communicative skills. We have data from programs where animals are being trained, how animals match up with eachother and with humans.
I don't want you to listen to my advice, that's clearly never going to happen. I want you to use the sources and arguments I gave you to broaden your knowledge and come to your own conclusions and (counter-)arguments.
I gave you a source for everything I stated. Read the sources for yourself, I'm not writing my master thesis here...
I gave you the source, and a short summary. Asking me to then cite specifics is frankly not only rude, but lazy on your part.
Again, I gave you sources, and I am not making extraordinary claims here. I feel like you expect me to be your personal professor in multiple fields... I don't know what more you want from me. If you're not going to read the books for me or for this discussion, read them for your dog. Regardless of your conclusions after reading them, they contain valuable information to improve your relationship (and general knowledge) with your pet and other animals.
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
I think the scientific term is "dogrel".
1 SuperShake66652 2017-10-25
A dogfucker taking dog communication classes to rape their dogs better is like a pedo taking child development classes.
I hope you get hit by a bus, degenerate.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I didn't take dog communication classes to rape dogs, I took them as they where part of the curriculum. By the time I took those classes I already new 95% of the things that they tried to teach me. I had learned dog language from online guides way before I took those classes. And the point of learning dog language is to avoid raping/abusing/abusing/harming/distressing a dog during word (or non-work)
Have fun being hit with the ban hammer.
1 RoninOak 2017-10-25
Do dogs from different regions speak different dog languages, or is it universal? Does a dog from China speak Chinese-dog-language? Or is it a breed thing, like English Bulldogs speaking English-dog-language? Are there dog language accents, and if so, does my Mexican neighbor's Chihuahua have one?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Universal with small individual variations. You can have 2 Labradors from the same litter and they both may have slightly differences in how they use their language.
1 Janfox 2017-10-25
It is really nasty... In my eyes that sub is supposed to still be alive... It didn't do anything wrong (in case of animal abuse - it even had rules against it)
I am sure that the most people of zoophillia actually were there for pleasure and what not - but not /r/abusinganimals
1 Matues49 2017-10-25
Why do you rape dogs?
1 GirlLover50 2017-10-25
Because his mother doesn't believe in anal or abortion.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Why do you make loaded question fallacies?
1 Matues49 2017-10-25
Why do you rape dogs?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Why do you make loaded question fallacies?
1 MAPM28 2017-10-25
Why are you a moron?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Loaded question fallacy.
1 shaneoffline 2017-10-25
Can't prove a negative, chap.
1 thirdegree 2017-10-25
The correct way to respond to dog rape allegations is not "they were totally into it!"
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
The correct way is to use the burden of proof. The person making the rape accusation has to prove that rape happened.
1 shaneoffline 2017-10-25
[–]shaneoffline 2 points 45 minutes ago*
Can you provide any evidence at all that you haven't raped a single dog outside of your misinterpreting the mind of another animal? [b]If you can't prove it, then your claim is a lie, and nothing but the sick expression of the mind of dog-raper.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2017-10-25
What? Do you even know what the fuck burden of proof is? Please, I seriously hope you get help. Stay away from dog parks.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I do know what the burden of proof is. I visit dogs parks, after all, I need to walk the dogs.
Why do I need help?
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
You are the one making the claim your dog can consent, sooooooooo.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I have not made that claim. You can read the comment tree and see that he is the one claiming that dogs can't consent. The burden of proof is on him, not me.
Your subjective opinion is irrelevant.
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
The comment tree doesn't mean shit, nerd. Ask people on the street and the vast majority will say "no, a dog can't consent. now get away from me."
But absolutely correct. You're probably a sociopath, tbqhwyf. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
It is clear that you don't understand about the burden of proof. You are doing a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Your argument is invalid.
You are using an: Argumentum ad populum. Your argument is invalid.
I have no made that such claim, at least not in here.
Subjective opinions are never correct.
Red herring fallacy. Another invalid argument.
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
It is clear that you don't understand human interactions or how to parse human language. You are doing a splitting the sentence fallacy. Your genetics are invalid.
I wasn't arguing you're a dog rapist because everyone thinks you are (they do though) but that you have the burden of proof for the statement: "dogs can consent to sex with humans"
So far you've just hid behind latin phrases you don't even understand, because you're desperate to justify your selfish pleasures.
If I say "dogs can't consent" and you take issue with it, you are saying "dogs can consent". But to be honest, I think it's more that you don't care. You know, being a sociopath and all.
Actually your sociopathy is very germane to your dog raping. Cruelty towards animals is a classic sign and I think you should look into getting help.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Red herring fallacy. That is not relevant to the debate.
I'm not familiar with that fallacy nor I can find any definitions for it. Can you link me to the definition of that fallacy?
Red herring fallacy. That is not relevant to the debate.
If that was your argument from the beginning, why didn't you said that from the beginning? Because you literally did an popularity fallacy. Anyways, yes, if I claim that dogs can consent to sex with humans, I would have the burden of proof to prove it. Can you prove that i have the burden of proof in this thread of comments? Because if i don't have the burden of proof in this thread of comments, then you are doing a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. If you can prove that I have the burden of proof, then I will proceed to provide that evidence.
Red herring fallacy. And pointing out that your arguments are fallacious is not me hiding, is me pointing out that your arguments are FALLACIOUS thus INVALID. Can you please try making rational/valid arguments?
Yes, I have issues with your claim as I know that your claim is bullshit. Which is why I used the burden of proof on bullshit claims. The person who made the bullshit claim will continue forever to present fallacious evidence to defend a claim because his claim is indefensible or he will admit that their claim was bullshit and that there is no evidence that can prove that his claim is valid/factual. Either way, that is a win for "team zoosexuals".
Again, red herring fallacy. Me being (or not being) a sociopath is not relevant to the debate.
You nor anyone has provided any scientific evidence that I'm a dog rapist. And me being or not being a dog rapist is not the topic of the debate, the topic is: Can you provide scientific evidence that adult animals can never use their mating rituals and language to give or deny consent to sex?
I know that, but again, that is not relevant to the debate.
Again, red herring fallacy. But even then, why should I get help? You don't even have evidence that I'm raping dogs or a sociopath. You telling me to get help is no different from a homophobe telling gay people to get help.
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
See, this wall of autism is why you rape dogs and can't get along with humans.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
False attribution fallacy X5
Do you have any rational non-bigoted intelligent arguments? Or irrational unintelligent arguments is all you can do?
1 LadySaberCat 2017-10-25
Do you have proof that /u/better_bot is irrational or a bigot?
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
Butthurt degenerate x10
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I see, so your answer is: I only have irrational unintelligent arguments.
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
See, in the end you will crow on and on about "muh logical arguments", but then rape dogs. You only pretend to be above a pleasure driven beast.
1 GuillotinesNOW 2017-10-25
REEEE THIS IS HATE SPEECH
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Is not hates speetch yet, so far, it is ignorant speech.
1 shaneoffline 2017-10-25
When you say you have sex with dogs, you admit to raping dogs, fammy.
1 GoMLism 2017-10-25
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
What?
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
/u/Amorebestia get fucked, degenerate
1 searingsky 2017-10-25
I read that as amoeba bestiality
Now i am sad that doesnt exist
1 AmoreBestia 2017-10-25
Woah.
1 Cephaliarch 2017-10-25
Many countries make a rightful distinction between bestiality and animal abuse. If someone, say, gives oral sex to a horse, I'd really like you to demonstrate proof that it causes any harm to the animal.
1 willfe42 2017-10-25
"[chomp]"
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
can't tell if serious...
...or one of u/aluzky's alts
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I don't have any alts.
1 DocMjolnir 2017-10-25
r/hunting is gonna get poached D:
1 appropriate-username 2017-10-25
Oshit, everyone should report this sub.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
Why? What the fuck does your pea brain find wrong with hunting?
1 DocMjolnir 2017-10-25
I don't.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
Good, keep it that way
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Unnecessary hunting is animal abuse. Sites like: r/hunting glorify animal abuse.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
WEW LAD
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
u/bsievers on suicide watch
1 bsievers 2017-10-25
You guys aren't very good readers, huh?
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
You know, I don't think 99% of users will care
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
"Healthy" doesn't describe a guy who downs three handles of vodka a week, buddy
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
"Fat piece of shit" probably does though
Care to confirm /u/bsievers?
1 willfe42 2017-10-25
The internet isn't a bumper-padded safe space. Please make a note of it, and advise other known weaklings to bring their own pads and helmet.
1 japsock 2017-10-25
wow, aren't you just such a good guy!
do you cum when you think about all the damsels in distress you concern yourself about?
1 BussySundae 2017-10-25
/u/bsievers is completely unable to handle being told what he does to himself slowly each & every night with multiple handles of vodka.
1 TheAltRightIsAlright 2017-10-25
Fuck. They shoah'd r/europeannationalism
r/whiterights next on the chopping block, I assume
I hate myself for caring about this even the tiny bit that I do
1 Mayocide_Now 2017-10-25
Why is a nationalism sub banned? Wanting migrants expelled is now "inciting violence"?
1 TheAltRightIsAlright 2017-10-25
It was a place to whine against mayocide
1 Dyslexter 2017-10-25
Because "The holocaust didn't happen but I wish it did" + "Remove Kebab" + "we need to defend ourselves against the violent niggers" = Banned
1 Zacoftheaxes 2017-10-25
Glad they're getting rid of all the Nazi subreddits but I know for a fact they will ignore all the Stalinist/Maoist subreddits who circlejerk about killing bankers.
1 Chicup 2017-10-25
Or pretty much anyone who thinks they are idiots.
1 Mr_Hank_Scorpio 2017-10-25
Liberals get the bullet too. Apparently
1 Chicup 2017-10-25
There is an overused Oprah joke in there.
1 Assy-McGee 2017-10-25
they got rid of leftwithsharpedge even before this new policy, tankies will get removed as well
1 dood98998 2017-10-25
Sadly, we may one day have to retire this golden meme
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-10-25
I want Daddy Stalin's cummies! 💦💦💦
How tankie am i?
1 dood98998 2017-10-25
Level 4.5
Gotta gulag all the normie communists to get to level 5
Level 6, of course is "state capitalism"
1 Fucking_Christ 2017-10-25
Eh, LFSE was kinda special. they made multiple videos about killing and eating prince
1 CaptainMemer 2017-10-25
I hope they remove r/ChapoTrapHouse.
1 Bisoromi 2017-10-25
Any examples as to why Captainmemer?
1 CaptainMemer 2017-10-25
They promote violence and sexual degeneracy.
1 Bisoromi 2017-10-25
I mean Cumtown gotta cum.
1 Wraith_GraveSpell 2017-10-25
And as we know, (((Bankers))) are the most important protected class.
1 glmox 2017-10-25
thats because bankers arent human
1 Wtfct 2017-10-25
/r/anarchism is still up?
1 Zacoftheaxes 2017-10-25
I mean they literally cheered on that dumbass who tried to assassinate Trump by grabbing a cops gun while it was holstered.
If you're going to cheer on assassins, at least show some restraint and cheer for ones that know what they're doing.
1 Kuonji 2017-10-25
This is a spicy comment
1 goblinm 2017-10-25
Are you really triggered by those comments?
Most have been deleted by mods and down-voted to hell.
1 Kuonji 2017-10-25
I got through half of those links without finding a single comment in the negatives so I'm not sure what you're on about. Unless you were trolling me into checking that claim out. If so, then hats off to you.
1 Mort_DeRire 2017-10-25
I'll suck my own cock if they ban lsc
1 Assy-McGee 2017-10-25
clean the smegma out of your dick first cuz that shit is nasty
1 Mort_DeRire 2017-10-25
I'm circumcised bro, I don't have that shit like the animals that are uncut
1 Doomblaze 2017-10-25
must suck having no feeling down there bro
1 TheAtheistPaladin 2017-10-25
If you could suck your own cock, you wouldn't be here shitposting, and making false promises.
1 habs76 2017-10-25
probably because reddit left wingers don't go crazy and kill their dad
1 Zacoftheaxes 2017-10-25
This is Reddit we're talking about, anything is possible.
1 habs76 2017-10-25
yea i dont doubt a lefty could snap i just think it's a lot less likely weird as we are we aren't maga chud weird
1 Dyslexter 2017-10-25
and shoot up mosques and shit or drive cars into crowds
1 StellaSadistic 2017-10-25
This kills the mayocide.
1 OldOrder 2017-10-25
This aggression against /r/Drama's cultural identity will not stand
1 Etra 2017-10-25
The admins are being racist against dramamericans. We need to unionize and hire a homeless guy to picket outside Reddit headquarters.
1 jorio 2017-10-25
Actually kind of a good idea, have a guy hold up a sign that says "jump you fuckers" or something like that.
1 better_bot 2017-10-25
Is it illegal to tell the president to kill himself?
1 jet199 2017-10-25
Tut, ableist.
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
Litrully cultural imperialism to the lamest degree
1 Etra 2017-10-25
apology for poor english
when were you when /r/drama dies?
i was sat at home eating bussy when admins ring
‘kys is kill’
‘no’
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
fa
1 Tetizeraz 2017-10-25
Stop being a faggot calling your friends at /r/drama "fags".
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
Sorry dad.
1 Tetizeraz 2017-10-25
Daddy just want to keep you safe.
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-10-25
Is there a list of impermissible phrases on Reddit?
1 ShaggyO_0Rogers 2017-10-25
But my mayocide !!!
1 shanewater 2017-10-25
Hopefully this signals the end of /r/watchpeopledie and /r/zoophilia/
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Maybe you doin't know this, but there are other zoo forums out there, zoophilia will never be gone.
1 TotesMessenger 2017-10-25
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 GirlLover50 2017-10-25
More Cringe for The Cringe God!
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-10-25
in my heart it's already gone
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
I don't normally kinkshame, but for you... I'll make an exception.
For the love of Allah, stop.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Do you have an objective and rational reason to make an exception for me?
1 shanewater 2017-10-25
You fuck dogs, that's rational enough.
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
Depends if you can agree if subjective morality (shaped by evolution according to Haidt and friends) is rational. I would say it's immoral because of 'sanctity/degradation'.
Basically, you are really at high risk of getting some nasty shit by diddling doggos. Therefore, ewwwww. It's wrong.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Aren't you making this more complicated than it should be?
Either he has a rational reason to make an exception or not.
That would be an irrational reasons as not everybody thinks that way.
List of human diseases according to Wikipedia: 400. That is 400 diseases you can get from fucking a human. A dog an only give a human about 26 zoonosis. Among them are worms and fleas that are a non-issue. The risk of getting sick from a dog is very low, the risk of getting sick from fucking a human is very high, literally millions of humans die each yer to diseases they got from fucking a human. Where you can't find 100 people who die from sex with an animal. So, you may want to fact check your claim, because it is not true that there is a high risk of getting some nasty shit by diddling doggos.
By that logic sex with humans is wrong, as humans spread way more diseases than dogs.
Doen't matter if you don't buy it, facts are facts, just like some one who doen't buy the fact that earth is spherical won't change the fact that it is. Feel free to do research on dogs mating rituals and language and watch plenty dog mating videos, if you do that, you will see that they can consent to sex.
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
Morality and rationality are very complex subjects. There are entire fields such as behavioral finance that take the view that nobody acts rationally. I don't think anyone's morality is wholly rational since there is evidence that people make morals judgements and rationalise them after the fact.
Ah, but people do. Most people tend to think of hygiene as separate from morality in the modern age, but there is a clear theme of sanctity/degradation in every religious text. Granted, people place very different weightings on each of the six moral foundations, but this axis is one of them.
Far more humans get fucking compared to humans fucking dogs. You need to take exposure into account. (It's not total diseases contracted you should be measuring, it's diseases contracted per unit of exposure that is a better metric.)
I'm not fully convinced. But if you have research supporting this I will eat a Red Rocket though (in spirit, not IRL).
Noooooooooooooope. Dogs can consent is not a fact. Sorry!
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Religion = subjective = not rational.
Doen't change the fact that you can only get like 26 zoonosis from a dog and that almost all those can be avoided if the dog is vacinated/deformed and external parasite free.
Even if the same amount of humans who has zoosex where equal to the amount of humans who fucks humans, the amount of humans who gets sick for fucking humans would be much higher. Humans have way to many infectious diseases that another human can get through sex. That is the fact. It doen't make sense to worry about dog sex when human sex is the main culprit in spreading diseases.
Humans still win in disease contracted per unit of exposure.
You presented no evidence that there is a high risk of infection from dog sex. You are not fully convinced that you did a poor research on the topic? Well, you did a poor research, try again.
Already point you to the direction fo the evidence. You can easily google how many zoonosis a human can get from a dog and also google how many infectious diseases a human can get from being in contact with a human.
The numbers are around: 26 for dogs 400 for humans.
You have not provided any scientific evidence that dogs can't consent. Where all video evidence of dogs having sex shows VISIBLE UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of dogs consent to sex. Also, scientific studies of dogs mating rituals explain in detail how dogs consent to sex. Like I said, deny facts all you want, they still remain true even if you don't acknowledge them.
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
Yeah, but this is where most people get their morality from. You're ignoring the bit where I said I don't think anyone's morality is rational.
The number of diseases doesn't matter. You still need to use risk per unit of exposure.
Any study that shows this?
I'm not that motivated to research dog sex! You are the expert, I know the burden of proof is on me, but you should be able to back it up with something more solid than freaking Wikipedia if you want to convince people.
Lol. Guess I'm science-denying radical constructivist then!
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Their subjective irrelevant morality from.
Like I said, humans win on that.
Feel free to google them. For example, google how often humans get the flue and how easily they get it. Compare that to how often a human gets rabies from a dog.
Translation: I made claims that i had nothing about and now I'm being corrected because my claims where bullshit.
We don't even need to provide evidence that what we do is acceptable. Just like something is by default legal when there is no laws against it, something is by default acceptable when evidence can't be found of it being unacceptable. Is the antis ob to prove that it is unacceptable and in 20 years of asking them for evidence to support their claims, they are unable to provide any evidence for their claims because their claims are not factual. Just proving that your claims are baseless and non-factual is enough for us to win.
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
All morality is subjective. There is no objective universal morality. You're really ignoring this point.
Where I'm from fucking dogs is illegal though.
You haven't corrected anything, because you've provided zero evidence as well my dude.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
How I'm ignoring it?
And? I ensure you that they have ZERO rational reasons to make it illegal, just like the 80 countries that have gay sex as illegal have zero rational reasons to make it illegal.
Have you ever asked me to prove a claim were I had the burden of proof? If not, then I have not failed at providing evidence. But you have failed at asking for it.
Example/analogy: if I claim that 2+2 = 4 and you don't ask for evidence that this is true, then it is assumed that you acknowledge that 2+2=4.
A single person comment may have several claims, it would take hours to write just one comment if you had to give citations for every single claim presented in that comment. To make the debate faster and less complicated, you should only provide evidence that you think is necessary or when the other person ask for citations because he things the claims is bogus.
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
You said: > Their subjective irrelevant morality from.
You dismiss what I say as subjective, but it's all subjective IMO. None of it is 'objective' since moral judgements are rationalised after a position is formed.
Your subject matter is controversial and this gets 'special treatment' w.r.t. the burden of proof. I agree it's not fair, but people will generally be unconvinced otherwise. If you want to convince them you'll need something a little more solid than wiki.
I'll concede this one though, you win and have my blessing to diddle dogs.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Thanks.
I'm talking in objective terms. Mentioning subjective stuff to prove a point, doesn't help at all to prove that point or to disprove my points.
Special treatment?
If they want evidence that adult animals can consent to sex, all they have to do is ask or research on their own. Sadly, most of them are bias and they only look for evidence that they are right and never for evidence that they are wrong.
Convincing them is a bit hard (as the undeniable evidence that they can consent to sex is present in videos of humans having consensual sex with animals and they don't want to look at that evidence) so we conform with them acknowledgment that their claims are not based on any evidence. Them acknowledging that they have no reason to be against zoosex is enough for us to consider it a win.
1 LadySaberCat 2017-10-25
Let me guess; you don't understand the meaning of that phrase do you?
And you have proof of this?
By convincing you mean constantly following people around Reddit like a jealous ex and screeching your woefully flawed and factually incorrect statements while believing yourself to be knowledgeable and rational.
Just because a video features sexual activity it automatically means consent? Plenty of videos floating around featuring men and women who were being raped, but due to lack of sound of lack or screaming and flailing people assume "Oh this is perfectly innocent." You'll need better evidence.
In most states watching beast porn is a crime punishable with time in prison, not that you'd ever know that. So find a better way to prove your point.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
I know what the word means but I don't understands why he is using the word. Why this subject would require special treatment instead of the same treatment as every other topic?
Also, this comment is not about you nor directed to you, so, why are you here?
Yes, in have proof that people who are bias exist. Why you ask? Do you think people who is bias don't exist?
No, by convincing I mean convincing. Do you not know the definition of that word?
No. It depends of the context of the sexual activity. If the sexual activity shows rape, then the it means that the video features rape. If the sexual activity shows consent, then the it means that the video features consensual sex.
Obviously, I would not provide a video that has no sound as evidence that this is proof that consensual zoosex exist. FYI: If the person or animal is not denying consent to sex and he/she is perfectly able to do it, that is called implied consent to sex.
Straw man fallacy. You are attacking fallacious evidence that I have not presented and that I would never present as evidence.
Strange, because watching zooporn is not a crime as it doen't involves any victims. So your claim that it is aa crime is clearly bullshit.
Maybe you mean to say that it is illegal? Because something being a crime or illegal are not the same thing. Watching zoosex may be illegal in some places but never criminal.
But Ok, lets assume that zoosex is illegal to watch in some US states, can you cite which states and their respective laws? I'm asking for evidence because I have done research non the topic and I'm not aware of any IS state that has such laws. But who knows, maybe a very new law has made it illegal to watch in a state, though, you said many state, and I find hard to believe that many states would past the same law so recently. So, can you back up your claim with evidence?
Moving the goal post fallacy. A video showing consensual sex between a human and an animal shows undeniable evidence that consensual zoosex HAPPENS. And it is the easier way to prove it beyond doubt.
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
Just to be clear, I'm still unconvinced. But defeated. ;)
Morality fundamentally is not objective. I'm not trying to divert away from anything. To be clear, my view is that all morality judgements are subjective. Therefore you have to talk about subjective things here.
The onus of proof is always yours if you want to convince people.
Eh.
Again, better evidence than wiki links are needed.
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
That would be a: Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. The onus in on the person making the claim, I didn't made the claims, I only ask the person who made the claim to prove that his claim was true instead of made up bullshit. The person who made the claim (not me) is the one that has the onus.
I will try translating.
People can just ask for evidence or find that evidence on their own.
Most people look for evidence that zoosex is rape and don't try looking for evidence that zoosex is not always rape. They make the false assumption that zoosex is always rape because that is the only thing they look. Is like people who think that global warming is a lie, they only look for evidence that proves their belief and they never seek evidence that their belief may be false.
Anyone can look and read scientific research about almost any animal mating rituals and language, there they can read what language the animal uses to demonstrate consent to sex or denial of consent to sex. Then watching videos of those animals having sex (between them or with humans) it can be seen if the animal is consenting to sex or not.
That seems like a moving the goal post fallacy. Unless you can prove that the Wikipedia citations where invalid, then the Wikipedia citations where valid evidence to prove my point.
1 CultOfCuck 2017-10-25
Yeah and I agree, but regardless you can be completely correct on what makes a fallacy and still make an unconvincing arguments simply because people do not actually act like "rational agents" in any context.
You are on the mission to moralise dogsex, your subject will lead people to not care about burden of proof fallacies, so you give the proof.
I agree that it is still a fallacy. I'm not saying it isn't. Not my point.
This shit though... Holy fuck dude. Literally any and every piece of serious research doesn't cite Wikipedia. You can't use Wiki to make arguments in general, nevermind this stuff. I'm not debating that one.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
I'll let you fuck my wife just please for the love of god stop fucking dogs
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
What breed is your wife? ;)
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Is fat a "breed"?
1 Aluzky 2017-10-25
Nope
1 polddit 2017-10-25
Exactly we still have places such as /r/zoosexual
Don't let this one slip away guy
1 glmox 2017-10-25
the fuck do you have against watchpeopledie
1 shanewater 2017-10-25
I'd unironically watch users who post on that site being lined up and shot.
1 glmox 2017-10-25
but then someone else would need to post that on the sub, and then youd need to shoot them, and then someone else would need to post that on the sub...
1 shanewater 2017-10-25
Wow you're one smart cookie, why didn't I think of that?
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Seems like a solid content creation strategy
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-10-25
Would also help with over-population issues.
1 Cephaliarch 2017-10-25
Why?
Nobody is going to go "aw, shucks, /r/zoophilia was shut down, I guess I won't have sex with animals anymore." All this accomplishes is that people will go to other forums with actually dangerous communities, or simply not go to any forum at all and engage in risky zoophiliac sex rather than having a place to give important advice on how to do so safely.
1 shanewater 2017-10-25
For one it makes it harder for an average user to find an animal fucking community and be influenced. It doesn't do anything about dogfuckers but hopefully keeps them far underground so nobody will ever see them.
They've got a habit of letting everyone know who they are anyway so it's not hard to follow CERTAIN USERS to different subreddits and report them too.
1 Cephaliarch 2017-10-25
If you aren't already innately a zoophile, you're not going to have sex with an animal because the idea is completely outlandish to most people.
/r/zoophilia pretty much just sticks to /r/zoophilia and meta subreddits that link to us. The banning of /r/zoophilia is going to lead to more animals being harmed in the future because of the destruction of a space where health advice could be exchanged.
1 willfe42 2017-10-25
I feel like you're thiiiiiis close to self-awareness!
How much space does "don't do it" really take?
1 Cephaliarch 2017-10-25
We're going to keep having sex with dogs and there's really nothing you can do about that, my dude.
1 willfe42 2017-10-25
It's so very weird to me that you're proud of that. "Imma keep fuckin' dawgs and yew can't stop meh!" Sit back and consider all the poor life choices you've made that lead you to utter those words and feel any sense of pride in doing so.
Is sex with humans truly that unavailable to you that you must victimize defenseless animals?
Oh go explore your sexuality deep and hard with a cactus. What a load of horseshit. "You've taken away our safe space, and so now we must begin hurting animals, because we totally weren't before. And it's ALL YOUR FAULT!"
You're a sick asshole. I hope you get caught by a farmer and meet your doom from the business end of a shotgun.
1 CR90 2017-10-25
Maybe you just shouldn't fuck dogs if you're that concerned about their safety you fucking weirdo.
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
Do you know what would really stick it to the admins? If their announcement actually caused people to kill themselves
Wanna start the trend?
1 Kebab_remover- 2017-10-25
Yes. This decreases my once-every-six-months bestiality craze, for I am saved.
1 MayorEmanuel 2017-10-25
I'd be pretty afraid of an animal rapist's gloves coming off in their dangerous community. Hopefully snellygaster finds it so we can fully enjoy ourselves.
1 Protect_Me 2017-10-25
I.e., "we've banned a few high profile subs and we're gonna ignore everything else"
1 appropriate-username 2017-10-25
I.e. it all depends on whatever our Coca-Cola TM (C) overlords want us to do.
So, as long as you advertise for them before you tell someone to kill themselves, you'll probably be fine.
1 stevemisor 2017-10-25
Imagine being a mod on site and having trouble knowing if a man being beaten to death on the side of the road with a rock is acceptable to post.
1 Endless_Vanity 2017-10-25
As a mod of watchpeopledie people being stoned to death is allowed so far.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-10-25
Have you thought of placing your mod duties on your resume?
1 Endless_Vanity 2017-10-25
I should. I mod /r/watchpeopledie, /r/Dickgirls, and /r/Hell.
That's like the trifecta of modships nobody you know could ever obtain including the POTUS.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-10-25
You never know. It could get you that sweet gig manning the cash register at your local adult toy store.
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
Meh
I'd rather be the jizzmopper but to each their own
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
Uh, r/hell isn't in your moderated subs list.
1 Endless_Vanity 2017-10-25
Neither is /r/CCGetsDrunk, /r/Dumbsford, /r/MeetyourMaker, /r/DoubleDoubleCC, /r/LaureLaiWatch and a host of other private subs you can click on, but can't view.
Only people who can view the subs can see them on my modlist. I mod about 60 subs, but I think only like 40 are visible to the general public.
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
Oh, okay.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Mod me to watchpeopledie for the lulz
Also maybe laurelaiwatch
1 Endless_Vanity 2017-10-25
I can't let anyone into Laurelai and WPD may be looking for a couple new mods soon after the new rules just came out. Watch for a stickied post.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Can do fam
1 willfe42 2017-10-25
You're doing god's work, son.
1 Endless_Vanity 2017-10-25
It's a winner lol.
1 22C9 2017-10-25
Will these changes effect /r/watchpeopledie? That's my favourite sub :/
1 Endless_Vanity 2017-10-25
That's what he answered in a different part of this thread about the same question. Our team does fully work with the admins so I imagine they'll tell us which posts of ours are borderline glorifying or inciting violence and we will remove them and update our rules to reflect any new changes to what is and isn't allowed.
1 22C9 2017-10-25
Cool, thanks for the info
1 I_DRINK_TO_NOT_KMS 2017-10-25
>Imagine being a mod
Haha why.
1 MayorEmanuel 2017-10-25
We all have these kinds of moral choices to make.
1 respaaaaaj 2017-10-25
This is going to be the best reddit drama in years. Either they enforce the rule and nuke half of the political subs on reddit (left and right), or they continue to be hypocritical fuccbois and ban a tiny fraction of the tankie and nazi sphere leaving the big subreddits (T_D, the fucking 30 dae kil lall whitey subreddits) up and running.
1 TheCodexx 2017-10-25
Watch them just ban the Nazi LARP'ers and then crack down on people being snarky to defend the poor frail snowflakes who can't take a joke.
Reminder that people who get butthurt over "kys" should kill themselves.
1 respaaaaaj 2017-10-25
I think posters like you may want to keep yourselves safe for the short term future.
1 zahlman 2017-10-25
wut
we get the exact same type of drama on a regular basis tho
1 wow___justwow 2017-10-25
I don't see the issue
1 AnnArchist 2017-10-25
/r/pol, /r/NationalSocialism, and /r/europeannationalism banned so far.
/r/far_right was also banned 19 minutes ago.
/r/actualjournalism (a racist sub) was also banned 9 minutes ago.
/r/Nazi was also banned 32 minutes ago.
/r/racoonsareni**ers was also banned 52 minutes ago.
/r/DylannRoofInnocent was banned 44 minutes ago.
/r/ReallyWackyTicTacs (a gore subreddit) was banned 1 hour ago.
/r/whitesarecriminals was banned 1 hour ago.
1 WarSanchez 2017-10-25
Where can I see the bans happening? Is there a mod log?
1 AnnArchist 2017-10-25
per the comments in the linked thread
1 WarSanchez 2017-10-25
Ok, will start looking thanks
1 blubski 2017-10-25
lol censoring words in /r/drama
1 AnnArchist 2017-10-25
lol i copy and paste. im too lazy to correct it
1 uniqueguy263 2017-10-25
We're fine, they aren't cracking down on memes
1 blubski 2017-10-25
Plenty of people have been non-meme told to kill themselves on this sub.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-10-25
This sub is under 25 layers of irony, I doubt anything here is non meme
1 Assy-McGee 2017-10-25
your face is a meme
1 ComedicSans 2017-10-25
Got 'im.
1 blubski 2017-10-25
I'm sure the random people who check their messages to see 20 pings from people telling them to off themselves really appreciate the 25 layers of irony
1 uniqueguy263 2017-10-25
Tbh that is rly fucked up. I don't do it tho and I'm just saying mods woulda banned this sub a while ago if they were going to
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
Your naivete needs to go away, permanently. But yeah, this place is safe.
FOR NOW
1 John_Kvetch 2017-10-25
tbh, do we really appreciate you?
1 lunchza 2017-10-25
Tbf if you take mean words on the internet seriously you probably should unironically kill yourself
1 Stuntman119 2017-10-25
I'd be honoured, personally.
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
Lmao did you actually make a throwaway to comment about this announcement?
Approximately how many layers of irony do you think I'll need to not get banned when I tell you to kys?
Asking for a friend
1 blubski 2017-10-25
I make lots of throwaways, and zero layers of irony.
1 Somenakedguy 2017-10-25
Good lord that's embarrassing
How can you bear to continue living?
1 blubski 2017-10-25
mains are for faggots and jews, get with the time
1 ClaxtonOrourke 2017-10-25
Bless your heart
1 backltrack 2017-10-25
And?
1 glmox 2017-10-25
have you ever heard of /r/Nazi before? admins always sweep up a bunch of irrelevant ghost towns with like 200 subscribers in these purges so they seem more substantial than they are
1 uniqueguy263 2017-10-25
I thought they caught it before
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-10-25
I think they just quarantined it.
1 TheCodexx 2017-10-25
/u/landoflobsters banning people over snarky kys comments? kys please.
1 aqouta 2017-10-25
Kys
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-10-25
It's happening...
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
NOT REALLY WACKY TIC TACS!
that was my go to drunk sub for lulz
1 nunast 2017-10-25
What was it? I wish I knew about any of these subs before they got hooked.
1 twinksteverogers 2017-10-25
gory stuff on minions, I think
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-10-25
Goddamnit even you knew about it! Haha. I liked that sub tbh. Weird af
1 twinksteverogers 2017-10-25
Nah, someone in SRD said what it was, I didn't even google image the sub because you know I hate gory things
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
I think /r/wackytictacs is still up
1 ManOfBored 2017-10-25
Basically r/gore or r/spacedicks edited into minion meme pictures
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
NO
1 Chromebookbitches 2017-10-25
NO
If you think this is something that you want, then you need to go check into some sort of psychiatric evalutation and follow-up care. Make sure you get on the list.
1 DispenserHead 2017-10-25
NOOOOOOOOOOO NOT REALLYWACKYTICTACS
IT WAS INNOCENT! WHY GOD WHY
1 backltrack 2017-10-25
No not the minions gore sub:(
1 Stuntman119 2017-10-25
I have never said this unironically before but fuck /u/spez and all the mods complicit in this I swear to fucking god
1 Stuntman119 2017-10-25
/u/landoflobsters
1 Jetz72 2017-10-25
1 nunast 2017-10-25
You have done a racism.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Oh and also a violence
1 nunast 2017-10-25
So pictures of dead people with "funny" text overlaid?
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
Dude sounds so triggered lmao
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Pls tag user
1 Jetz72 2017-10-25
Wasn't an actual quote, just the least common multiple of about 15 posts in that thread.
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
Then ping one or three.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-10-25
Call the tards out
1 dood98998 2017-10-25
Donno does a racism!
1 InternetLawyerESQ 2017-10-25
RIP Valuable Conversations
1 supergauntlet 2017-10-25
dumb srdine
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-10-25
I call for violence against Nazis.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-10-25
Hi, as top mod of /r/Drama, I'm going to have to ask you to remove or edit your comment.
Your comment promotes violence against a group of people (Nazis) and that makes it a direct violation of Reddit's rules.
1 I_DRINK_TO_NOT_KMS 2017-10-25
Here is the actual message for better meme referencing.
1 twinksteverogers 2017-10-25
1 comebepc 2017-10-25
Nobody shall dare post memes in my echo chamber!
1 wwyzzerdd 2017-10-25
How about in your colon?
1 niggerpenis 2017-10-25
brave
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2017-10-25
Kill all muslims, kill all anarchists, kill all nazis, kill yourself.
1 Ennui2778 2017-10-25
/r/whataboutthe_donald
1 I_DRINK_TO_KYS 2017-10-25
Landoflobsters suspended my account for telling them to kill themselves. Lmao.
1 nunast 2017-10-25
Kys
1 I_DRINK_TO_NOT_KMS 2017-10-25
Thank you for your concern friend.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
Not to sound like /u/botchlings, but how much would anyone like to bet this rule only applies to subs that are right wing and white?
1 botchlings 2017-10-25
See the post I just made.
1 Thot_Crusher 2017-10-25
It was actually not stupid. I am unironically proud of you, and will stop bullying you for now.
1 umar4812 2017-10-25
Lmao like r/popular. Meant to keep out political subs. Reddit admins did jack shit when a few hundred new anti-Trump subs started shitting up r/popular.
1 neutralvoter 2017-10-25
say what you want about the admins, but every time they post something you start to see all those edge case retard questions like "What about debating the politics and morality of the death penalty, either in general or for certain crimes?" all over the place and realize that these are the types of tard children they have to deal with every day.
As bad as admins are, every admin thread reminds me the userbase is all kinds of worse
1 willfe42 2017-10-25
Just once I'd love to see the admins respond to one of those insipid questions with a simple "try it and find out."
1 TheGhostOfRichPiana 2017-10-25
/u/landoflobsters thank you for looking out for us, I hope you too can keep yourself safe in these difficult times
1 the-crotch 2017-10-25
When are they going to ban /r/politics for their violent antifa rhetoric?
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
It's all right, it's not like we're posting spoilers or something.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
Oh you don't want me to tell you what happens in the latest Star Trek episode
1 Yiin 2017-10-25
Tell me, because I haven't and will never watch Star Trek.
1 CucksLoveTrump 2017-10-25
They're messing around with space-time displacement and it's fucking with the fabric of reality aboard the ship
1 arandomloser21 2017-10-25
WEW I imagine there will be a lot of tendies flying as more subs get banned.
1 Tiepilot789 2017-10-25
How are the Free Speech® cucks handling this?
1 Yelesa 2017-10-25
How long until this comment will be removed?
1 HINDBRAIN 2017-10-25
Mods?
1 Mayocide_Now 2017-10-25
How long before my name is banned?.....
1 comebepc 2017-10-25
Don't worry, the admins won't give a shit
Great username, though
1 I_smell_like_bacon 2017-10-25
Boil your head.
1 Mayocide_Now 2017-10-25
No double standard here:
1 Dramalamathrowaway 2017-10-25
This kills the reddit, not literally ofc, but now everything will be boring... So so boring..
1 wolfsktaag 2017-10-25
as always, the admins are just using "violence", "hate speech" or whatever drivel as an excuse to ban discussions and shift the narrative away from truth and into their delusional leftist faggotry
expect to see many right-leaning users and subs banned in the coming days
1 double-happiness 2017-10-25
No, that's my 2:2 in sociology, post-grad in adult education, and A-level psychology at D-grade (twice).
1 Gj-Dragon 2017-10-25
Glad incels isn't banned yet, one admin is probably a regular.
1 fayeDragon 2017-10-25
More than one, I'd imagine.
1 do0rkn0b 2017-10-25
the admins are paid to be retarded, think about it and what are we doing wrong in life?
1 DontTrustRedditors 2017-10-25
LOL, the admins continuing to ensure that they are seen as a partisan shit-show.
This site will never make one dime of profit.
1 anothergodamnaccount 2017-10-25
Yep, Reddit is fucked now. This is just shit, cause now they're gonna ban /r/anarchism and who will we make fun of weekly without them?
1 Pep_is_a_Doper 2017-10-25
May I ask why so many subreddits were banned?
1 73696D756C6174696F6E 2017-10-25
Commercialization. I think this has been the second or third wave. More will follow.
1 Pep_is_a_Doper 2017-10-25
This place is losing all credibility.
They're banning things because people are offended. Those people could literally just NOT GO TO THE FUCKING SUBREDDIT THAT OFFENDS THEM!
I've lost all hope in humanity at this point. People think being offended gives you special privileges or things in life.
It doesn't.
No one gives a single fuck if you are offended by something. I don't get why they are conforming to this.
1 73696D756C6174696F6E 2017-10-25
MAN UP AND KEEP IT TOGETHER. We're in the mayocidequeue now. Wait your turn and take it like it is. It will all be over soon, don't you worry, son.
1 RollThat 2017-10-25
im sure most people care as much as you do
1 TheTrain 2017-10-25
Send me a telegram when this whole site is banned.
1 slippyducky 2017-10-25
spez wants to mod /r/subredditdrama
1 TheTrueNobody 2017-10-25
This is extremely violent policy. Can admins ban themselves?