Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

bro it's a dog, not a person. there's no possible conceptualization of consent to violate, in the now, or at any point in the future.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Now apply that argument to minors.

"Minors aren't dogs" won't dig you out of that hole.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you are pooping me? lol. what is going on your guys' brains that makes you so r-slurred?

yes! literally minors aren't dogs ...

they are people, therefore there is a possible conceptualization of consent to violate. in the future, at the very least.

totally different issue right there.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>fails to realize that consent can be deferred (power of attorney, guardianship) and inferred (informal consent)

>cannot think figuratively

Still in that hole, le autiste.

You can pet a dog and infer that it likes that when it wags its tail and snuggles for more. Likewise, you can groom a minor and infer that they like to be """violated.""" (Hint: the analogy is asking you to spot the difference).

Answer: you can ponder all you like about personhood status and consent problems, but the state will simply mandate that you're too r-slurred to be trusted with such concepts and their relevance to sexual acts. Hence, laws against beastiality and pedophilia.

Anyway, dude lmao bussy have fun dying on the beastiality hill.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

dude lmao bussy have fun dying on the beastiality hill.

the only thing that's dead here is your ability to logic.

Likewise, you can groom a minor and infer that they like to be """violated."""

well, the problem is that later they come to the conclusion they've been violated, that's where the damage happens. because you told them that.

if they weren't subject to a bunch of social conditioning, how would they ever come to the conclusion of being violated? how does one come to that other than social conditioning?

hint: they wouldn't. and i know that's true because of anthropological evidence/case studies from societies which weren't abusive about it, including descriptions where they started to feel violated only after people told them they were. which leads me to believe that the damage of non-violent child sexuality is entirely a culturally induced problem.

because of this, i would say it's not prudent to expose children to sexuality within today's society, too likely to cause them an existential crisis later in life.

though i think it's more likely such a standard is holding us back due to all the unilaterally batshit insane seething it causes within humanity.

like why did you even connect this? dogs still literally aren't humans, they are not subject to the same issues. you see connection here that doesn't actually exist because how deeply you're seething, and it's overridden your logic, probably beyond it's ability to recover quite frankly.


You can pet a dog and infer that it likes that when it wags its tail and snuggles for more

dogs, however, won't ever come to the conclusion of being violated. so this whole thing is a complete non-issue. the dog was just licking a little peanut butter, and it literally doesn't, and can't ever care, that it also happened to lick kitty. where can the actual harm come from, beside the fallacy of some vague false analogy to minors, who still literally aren't dogs ...

so go ahead: put a little peanut butter on your bussy and have a dog lick it, if that's your thang. no harm done.

course, you don't care by now, because with your pathetic peanut flavored intellect, your too sheeplefried by social conditioning to separate the issues, and think you can write me off wholesale, cause again:

your ability to logic is so dead it was never even alive.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

dogs, however, won't ever come to the conclusion of being violated. so this whole thing is a complete non-issue

same could be said of mentally disabled people u male feminist

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

male feminist? (a) wrong, (b) wat a weird insult? lol.

and not quite, with a dog there's no possibility. with mental disability ... they still might. even a comatose vegetable might wake up some day. there's a level of a unknown there due to nature of being human i can draw a line at.

with a dog, it's ruled out completely. never gunna happen.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

lol i typed r e t a r d, fricking jannies

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

tl;dr, dogfricker

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16841300064648387.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

thanks for admitting to being wrong, most people don't have that maturity.

glad we could clear that up!

:)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I just had to peek behind the mask. Graze on, kingcow.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

wow, admitting defeat twice in a row?

spoil me again with a third.

;)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.