I only follow the patriarchal aspects of Islam. Not the aspects that make you a cuck e.g. Abstaining from womanising, penetrating a sweet trap virgin ass and lowering your gaze.
[>Republicans are too far gone. I really don't care what they do because I have zero respect for their party. At this point its tenets are open and thinly veiled bigotry. I don't expect any standards from a party that campaigned on "Mexicans are rapists, and we should ban muslims".
The democrats on the other hand actually do have standards and can progress society. It's why I hope they dump Franken and replace him with someone who has respect for women. I don't think that is too hard of a bar to cross, is it?
I think r/politics doesn't want Franken to go because they see themselves in him. Anyone defending doesn't understand boundaries. But I'd say that the fact that they're okay condemning Conyers but would rather bathe in conspiracies than even criticize Franken in the slightest says it all. Plus the fact that people like Harris, Bookee, Hillary Clinton, Gillibrand, and Warren face abuse and criticism from the sub for little to no reason.
It's obvious that the sub has a standard for white men and a preference for them to lead.
After all they told us that it was a conspiracy that Hillary won the primaries and that black voters were too stupid to repay Bernie for marching with MLK.
It makes me sick.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/7gxf7v/very_civil_drama_in_rminnesota_over_whether_you/dqmnp72/)
I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.
Nah I'm saying that brogressives are the real progressives and "progressives" are some bullshit that aren't progressive about anything, because brogressives support the actually good parts of progressivism, and not the boring shitty manhating feminism and intersectionality garbage.
21 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-12-02
I only follow the patriarchal aspects of Islam. Not the aspects that make you a cuck e.g. Abstaining from womanising, penetrating a sweet trap virgin ass and lowering your gaze.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 menslib_is_alpha_af 2017-12-02
[>Republicans are too far gone. I really don't care what they do because I have zero respect for their party. At this point its tenets are open and thinly veiled bigotry. I don't expect any standards from a party that campaigned on "Mexicans are rapists, and we should ban muslims".
🤔
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-02
Illegals are rapists, and we should ban Islam.
1 wwaalleess 2017-12-02
Imagine having such radical liberal beliefs that even SRD thinks you are crazy.
1 Rith2 2017-12-02
Or that you think /r/politics is too conservative.
1 LemonScore 2017-12-02
But this is always what happens with leftists. Nobody is ever pure enough, no matter how far left they are.
1 Mamaonthat 2017-12-02
Almost like Nazis right
Le horsecum theory
1 darth_stroyer 2017-12-02
Nah Nazis know that only a few people are needed to do their sneaky genocide and then just let the rest of the population breed.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-02
Fucking lol
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as here are no good arguments against it.
They say love between organisms of same intelligence level is what's morally correct, excuse me but, that's the stupidest most arbitrary definition I've seen to justify the moral response of ewww.
How about the simple definition of love between anything that consents. This is not arbitrary because I can justify it saying no harm comes to any party involved. This is a good definition without that arbitrary' intelligence clause'
One of the implications of this definition is that bestiality is fine. And it is fine, skewing definition of love to whatever suits your moral taste is equivalent to the homophobes' sex is only moral between a man and a woman i.e. tantamount to irrational bigotry.
You say animals cannot consent? I laugh and your argument, as any zoophile knows having sex with an animal that doesn't consent in damn near impossible unless you have a thing for scratches and pain. To add to this, one doesn't need to go far in this Internet age to discover that in the case of zoophilia too, the animal is pretty damn into it.
I am not a zoophile though, but this logical inconsistency has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone can show me that bestiality is morally wrong while homosexuality is not, I welcome their argument
ADDENDUM:
What if you were fucked by a horse with your consent?
COMMON ARGUMENT 1: Animals cannot report rape so best be to not take the chance at all.
Response: Neither can animals report any other crime, I expect animal rape to be treated just like animal cruelty is treated today.
COMMON ARGUMENT 2: What about pedophilia?
Response: pedophilia is immoral because the child's ability to make rational decisions is transferred to the parents. This is because children are not free beings as their are subjugated under their parents by necessity and nature.
Extension 1 of argument 2: case of consent of mentally ill and those not incapable of giving consent
I attempt to make the argument that in the case of the mentally ill, responsibility of decision making has been transferred to the care giver and thus utilizing this responsibility for personal gain is immoral.
In the case of animals, it is groomed to be faithful to the human in all circumstances, that is its function (only for pets) which is not the function of a free human.
Extending this logic, using animals to guard your door, by means of the trust bestowed upon you as it's caretaker is immoral as it is done for personal again.
This was brought up in a comment below and a strong argument against this would be to differentiate between using an animal to your advantage say, by guarding a door and using your animal to your advantage by having sex. Both in this case I assume to be consensual.
Extension 2 of argument 2: It is brought up in the comments that animals are mad to do all sorts of things they do not consent to e.g. sniffing hazardous material, being tied down and confined to small spaces, being brought and sold as property. Standard of consent is different but yet is applied unfairly to rationalize prejudice.
I think the commonly cited idea that animals can't communicate consent is a cover story we tell ourselves because we (society at large, on average) find bestiality gross, but isn't based on valid moral reasoning. Anyone who's owned a dog is probably well aware that they signal pretty clearly what they do and don't like. If you make a dog uncomfortable, or cause them pain, they yelp and struggle.
Now we generally have a standard of clear verbal consent for humans. This makes plenty of sense, because humans can communicate clearly, verbally. Is it fair to hold an entire species that can't communicate verbally to the same standard though? I consider it pragmatic to relax the standard, and not consider an action animal abuse if the "abuser" is actually making sure the animal is clearly okay with what's happening.
The other common comparison is between animals and children, with the claim that they can't consent because they don't have the faculties to make an informed decision. I think with human children, this 100% makes sense, because regardless of their in-the-moment decision, they will be left with strong memories that could cause emotional turmoil and potentially psychological issues down the road. I just don't think the same case can be made for an already-mature, for example, dog. If you do something with a dog, and the dog's not stressed out about it in the moment, I don't think the dog's going to be stressed out about it down the line, either.
To clarify, I am not saying it's impossible to rape an animal... it clearly is...I am only saying that it is possible to have consensual sex with an animal who's signals of comfort and discomfort you are competent at reading.
If animals are incapable of consent, then animals naturally having sex with each other is already rape anyways, so they are no worse off in either case.
Laws regarding sexuality place consent as the most important factor, based on the understanding that the lack of consent is associated with a traumatic deprivation of human dignity.
There is a reason why you don't need to ask consent from a sex toy either. They can't give consent, but they can't be raped either, if they don't have human dignity.
There is a reason why the laws where teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves are persecuted for sexualizing someone who can't give consent, are so ridiculous. They completely detach the phrase "lack of consent" from the more meaningful concept of "deprivation of consent", that is the true problem with the whole issue.
1 cheers_grills 2017-12-02
This, but unironically.
1 Rith2 2017-12-02
Purity spiraling
1 betwixttwolions 2017-12-02
SRDines? What on earth?
1 menslib_is_alpha_af 2017-12-02
Just a nickname (pronounced like sardines) we came up with for subredditdrama posters.
1 tpgreyknight 2017-12-02
I like it
1 menslib_is_alpha_af 2017-12-02
same.
1 nmx179 2017-12-02
u/Purgecakes brogressives are the only good progressives, hth.
1 Purgecakes 2017-12-02
Ok. If you say so. Brogressives aren't actually progressives, that is the point of the word. Is that the joke you're making?
Seems like this sub is more alt-righty than it was like 4 years ago when I last checked here, before alt-right even had that name.
1 nmx179 2017-12-02
Nah I'm saying that brogressives are the real progressives and "progressives" are some bullshit that aren't progressive about anything, because brogressives support the actually good parts of progressivism, and not the boring shitty manhating feminism and intersectionality garbage.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-02
Is that dude for real or what
1 menslib_is_alpha_af 2017-12-02
Definitely a troll of the Poe variety.