Lmao imagine being so humorless that not only do you not understand certain types of humor, but you actively seek and destroy humor elsewhere that you don't understand. src
This guy is fucking retarded edgelord and has no idea what he is talking about. If you don't have health care they don't just let you die the government pays for it and its on you weather you pay the bill or have shitty credit.
These people are so obtuse and use the same nitpicky, intellectually dishonest arguing that destiny uses. /u/seriouscatt you know what destiny means are you are deliberately miaconstruining his point. You're also a cuckboy for watching other people play videogames.
Destiny is an insufferable irrelevant cunt as well, why do people care about a streamers political views? Shoutout to mah boy /u/DickMasterson for calling this loser out.
Are you opposed to criticism? Do you think if Destiny said "hey I was thinking of not saving my fathers life because you voted for Trump" to his parents, they'd react perfectly fine? I mean he's 5'5, they'd probably still be able to spank him
To have such a thought cross your mind and not dismiss it as a joke is insanity
Not really, it just shows that you can entertain different scenarios and opinions. For example, I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as there 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.
Like I said, I am not a zoophile, 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.
Why don't they play the game they enjoy watching?! It boggles my failing mind that you can actually play the game they are watching, but they would rather watch someone else play it. It's like this person acts as some sort of surrogate friend or some thing, for lonely people with no friends.
38 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-12-04
Lmao imagine being so humorless that not only do you not understand certain types of humor, but you actively seek and destroy humor elsewhere that you don't understand. src
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
TIL posting a clip of someone saying something stupid had anything to do with my political beliefs :thinking:
1 scatmunchies 2017-12-04
/u/Seriouscatt you are an faget
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
thnx bb
wana fuk?
1 scatmunchies 2017-12-04
no
1 SPEZ_AKBAR 2017-12-04
Why no?
1 Neronoah 2017-12-04
It's called having standards.
1 Talran 2017-12-04
Only prime bussy for /u/scatmunchies
1 students4trumpMI 2017-12-04
Autists acting autistic while autistically watching autists play video games.
1 polddit 2017-12-04
Autists acting autistic while autistically watching autists play video games.
1 Dextro420x 2017-12-04
This guy is fucking retarded edgelord and has no idea what he is talking about. If you don't have health care they don't just let you die the government pays for it and its on you weather you pay the bill or have shitty credit.
1 starship_litterbox 2017-12-04
That's not how cancer treatment works, leaf.
1 5e84d5539181a3fd3287 2017-12-04
These people are so obtuse and use the same nitpicky, intellectually dishonest arguing that destiny uses. /u/seriouscatt you know what destiny means are you are deliberately miaconstruining his point. You're also a cuckboy for watching other people play videogames.
Destiny is an insufferable irrelevant cunt as well, why do people care about a streamers political views? Shoutout to mah boy /u/DickMasterson for calling this loser out.
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
I was just pointing out how disgusting of a comment Destiny said was. To think I meant anything other than to showcase this clip as is would be on you
1 5e84d5539181a3fd3287 2017-12-04
You think hypotheticals are disgusting? Are you offended by the trolley problem or other thought experiments?
Boy, eating all that soy makes you soft and easily offended.
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
Sure, think whatever you want. To then go on to provokingly voice that and to go a step further and rationalise it is a whole different thing.
To have such a thought cross your mind and not dismiss it as a joke is insanity
1 5e84d5539181a3fd3287 2017-12-04
Nah, you can think off all kinds of fucked up scenarios and apply moral schools of thought to them. This is called basic philosophy.
Why are you opposed to free thought?
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
Are you opposed to criticism? Do you think if Destiny said "hey I was thinking of not saving my fathers life because you voted for Trump" to his parents, they'd react perfectly fine? I mean he's 5'5, they'd probably still be able to spank him
1 5e84d5539181a3fd3287 2017-12-04
Yeah but he didn't do that.
So why are you so mad.
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
Yes, im whatever delusion you need to say to rationalise it
1 5e84d5539181a3fd3287 2017-12-04
Rationalize what? Stop with the word soup and post bussy
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
Yes
1 5e84d5539181a3fd3287 2017-12-04
Where da bussy at
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2017-12-04
bussy so base you get da aids from seeing.
1 shallowm 2017-12-04
Not really, it just shows that you can entertain different scenarios and opinions. For example, I believe bestiality ought to be legalized as there 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.
Like I said, I am not a zoophile, 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 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
tldr
1 shallowm 2017-12-04
There is no way to properly "tldr" a fleshed-out, well-supported argument, because the argument will have nothing to stand upon.
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
Oh you thought I wanted a summary. No I dont care what you think
1 shallowm 2017-12-04
Wow, typical response from the tolerant (((right))). You just want to stay in your safe space without confronting opposing ideas.
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
Oh im sure you have amazing points. I just dont care
1 5e84d5539181a3fd3287 2017-12-04
Pls don't effortpost on my /r/drama
1 BigDaddy_Delta 2017-12-04
He is a manlet, anything he produces is disgusting
1 Seriouscatt 2017-12-04
Nathan(his son) is a good boy who dindu nuffin. He caught the autism from his 5'5 father though
1 Raving_Dave 2017-12-04
Destiny's a fucking tard and everyone in that thread has autism.
1 poodlepaws 2017-12-04
People who watch other people play videogames are wasting finite resources like electricity and oil.
1 Crowsworth 2017-12-04
Why don't they play the game they enjoy watching?! It boggles my failing mind that you can actually play the game they are watching, but they would rather watch someone else play it. It's like this person acts as some sort of surrogate friend or some thing, for lonely people with no friends.
1 JumbledFun 2017-12-04
That dude sounds like captainpri. "I'm Australian so I don't care about American politics, but if you insult daddy I will reeee like crazy"
1 PantherChamp 2017-12-04
I noticed that too. Must be an alt
1 topest_of_kekz 2017-12-04
He posted like 100+ posts in this thread for 10 hours straight on a fucking sunday. Then he got up 8 hours later to start shitposting again.
That's some weaponized autism right there boys.