It does get to the point where I just need to separate from freaks all together. Screeching from subhumans demanding they be literally worshiped while I live a life of hard work.
Can I just have a little fun without controversy or corruption?
In my younger years people paid a price for going to far and it was called HIV. However there was still giants who shaped culture with a lot of hard work!
People are not going to take this shit much longer.
>even without realizing it yourself
A zoophile may argue, "Oh I never do anything the dog doesn't agree to", but this may only mean they'll push the limit until the animal just accepts it and submits.
Eventually they learn that showing teeth won't make the man stop trying to diddle their fortune cookie, which is interpreted as "Ohhh she's consenting!".
I didn't count on my opponent in this debate being this autistic but I'll persevere.
Words can have multiple meanings and implications. To dehumanize somebody in the sense of slavery (which we debated for a dozen posts over retarded, useless semantics), means to take a human and strip him of his rights, debasing him to the same social level an animal holds. I am human. I have human rights. Nothing about fucking an animal implicates that I want to be the animal (beyond the level to which humans are animals, anyway), or that I want to give away my rights, quite the opposite. Maybe I simply like dicking animals and see nothing wrong with commiting the act (provided the appropriate precautions are made so both parties are fine with it), without any further power dynamics bullshit attached.>>3629260
This is a baseless assumption that exists only in your head.
It's this sort of shit that makes me hate getting lumped into the "LGBT community" just for because I'm gay. It's also the reason why I don't associate with anything furry IRL. Bad enough to be lumped in with one group of coomers that make how they get off the entirety of their personality and identity.>>3629260
There's also the issue with animal rapists labelling any behavior as consent, deluding themselves into seeing consent where it doesn't exist, or just outright lying about giving a fuck about consent. It's the exact same sort of behavior and mentality as child molesters.
>>3629257>It isn't. That's the point.
That's the OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT, you jogger. YOU argued that they're not equivalent. Fuck off.>They lack the mental faculties to infer your motives and thoughts, so it's only too easy for you to trick and groom them into doing all sorts of things
And you can do all of the above with a sufficiently naive human, perfectly legally and perfectly morally. And nothing about the above implies that those motives are malicious. Just because I own a knife and am capable with it doesn't mean I'm a murderer.>Whether they do is not a concern for human morality. It's completely pointless to condemn a dog as if it were a human.
It is a concern, else I wouldn't bring it up you absolute fuckwad. If a dog can fuck a dog without raping the dog, how come a human can't fuck a dog without raping the dog in the same scenario?>No, they're not. The dog still can't consent to have sex with a human, whether or not it is sufficiently confused and groomed to have sex with you.
"Confused and groomed", ah yes reminds me of communism, everyone against it is obviously insane! How could it be any other way?>Displaying their sexuality does NOT mean you're invited or morally permitted to join. That is a complete non-sequitur.
Such showcases are almost invariably shown to precede mating in nature. If ignored, they might be repeated in a more blatant manner. I'm too tired to explain it to your obstinate ass at the moment, so you'll have to do with that food for thought.
And what if perhaps they're the ones joining? Is the dog raping itself? Are you raping the dog by the dog fucking you?>I think not. You bring out class and nation: that is the same excuse, "not us". Slavery is permitted as long as there exists a social division that prevents the slave owners themselves being taken as slaves. When the social barriers go away, whoops, self-interest makes slavery go away.
Those social barriers will exist for as long as there is more than one human on the planet. True classless communism is a farce and will never exist. Politicians vs the people. Boom.
From what does what is moral follow? Don't answer people because that's a bullshit answer, those people themselves make the choice on something else. Tradition? Science? From what do changes to what is moral follow?
I feel lucky to have a few friends to speak to but the majority of my life I have been surrounded by narcissistic scum. In my Jesus based religion I have been around scum! I see a lot of these communities that look a hundred times worse!
Best wishes to you!
>>3629264>That's the OPPOSITE OF YOUR POINT, you jogger. YOU argued that they're not equivalent. Fuck off.
>And you can do all of the above with a sufficiently naive human, perfectly legally and perfectly morally.
Actually, that would be called statutory rape and in the law it usually it applies to children and the mentally handicapped, and sometimes other people who are in no capacity to consent. It is far from acceptable.
>If a dog can fuck a dog without raping the dog, how come a human can't fuck a dog without raping the dog in the same scenario?
Because we are not judging dogs by human standards, because they're dogs, not humans. Would you also complain that a rock is being rude to you by not answering, or that a bird is not obeying minimum aviation flight altitude rules?
>How could it be any other way?
A dog that decides to have sex with humans is as broken as a human who feels the need to have sex with dogs. With the caveat of the typical male dog humping everything out of reflex - but is that consent or being compelled to? It still does not make an invitation or a moral license for YOU to join in.
>Such showcases are almost invariably shown to precede mating in nature. If ignored, they might be repeated in a more blatant manner.
See above. Still not a valid excuse in terms of consent and rape.
>And what if perhaps they're the ones joining? Is the dog raping itself? Are you raping the dog by the dog fucking you?
No, you're still raping the dog. Making use of something which doesn't know better is still rape.
>Those social barriers will exist for as long as there is more than one human on the planet.
A different argument entirely. Don't shift the goalposts.
>Don't answer people because that's a bullshit answer,
Poisoning the well much? There is nothing but people who can define morality. Leaves blowing in the wind don't care where they're going or how.
>those people themselves make the choice on something else. Tradition? Science? From what do changes to what is moral follow?
Morality is subject to social evolution. It is contextual to the mode of the society, but also has major components in the biological facts of humanity and basic survival.
>There is nothing but people who can define morality.
Well, of course dogs could define morality for dogs, if they had the mental capacity to think about the matter. They might then try to apply it to humans, and condemn you for shaking hands instead of sniffing butts.
Don't bother trying to argue rationally with the dog molester. His brain is irreparably broken.
Just insult and/or ignore.
>>3629266>Where? How?>>3628289>Actually, that would be called statutory rape and
Bedding somebody promising them fame and riches and fleeing the scene afterwards, or telling somebody that you enjoyed their public speech while you just really want to fuck their pussy is not "statuory rape". One'd call it dishonest though. You could also earnestly say that you want to fuck their pussy to somebody who'd easily fall for the above tactics otherwise, and that's not "statuory rape" either.>Would you also complain that a rock is being rude to you by not answering, or that a bird is not obeying minimum aviation flight altitude rules?
Most people in general blast rocks they don't like, and kill birds that get in their way. Regardless of bird and rock standards, they're judged by most human standards as undesirable.>A dog that decides to have sex with humans is as broken as a human who feels the need to have sex with dogs.
See, the crux of your argument here lies on you considering everyone who steps out of your line "broken" somehow. You can't possibly fathom others having different interests from yours without seeing them as damaged and inferior. And to that I can only add, +n+.>With the caveat of the typical male dog humping everything out of reflex
First prove that this behavior is a reflex.>but is that consent or being compelled to?
Isn't literally all sex compelled by a physiological need?>It still does not make an invitation or a moral license for YOU to join in.
But jerk off a dog for insemination, and suddenly it's perfectly fine to molest one!
Reality called: You don't get a moral license to handle animals in the first place. Closest thing to a license is the animal trusting you as a defacto pack leader.>No, you're still raping the dog. Making use of something which doesn't know better is still rape.
Doesn't know better? "It" knows what sex is, "it" is a dog. Dogs know what fucking is, else they couldn't fuck.>Poisoning the well much? There is nothing but people who can define morality. Leaves blowing in the wind don't care where they're going or how.
And those people defined that morality over something more than randomly smoking peyote, imbecile.>Morality is subject to social evolution.
Morality adopted gays and POC sex despite not contributing to basic survival per se, why not zoos?
So if a dog humps your leg and you let it finish…. is that rape because the dog is didn't consent?
Yes, unless you collect and sell the cum, then it's just business.
Why would you let it finish and encourage bad behavior? Dogs are dumb and do dumb shit. You shouldn't let them eat chocolate or grapes or rusty nails even if they think they're delicious.
weird, the far-right rag of liddle bennie never calls the suspect that>>3629249>And here comes the dehumanization brigade.
No, it's precisely because
they are human that animal and child rapists are awful.>>3629265>How did I get over here…?
blame the author for not knowing what left and right are
You must be fucking seething that you can't call someone a Nazi because Ben Shapiro is Jewish
Bad behavior? knocking over a trash can or chewing up a shoe is bad behavior.
If the dog is enjoying the leg humping and if it doesn't bother me or my leg it's not "bad behavior".
But apparently its rape.
Yeah that makes sense.
Zionists basically are Jews whose lesson from WW2 seems to be "Oppress or be oppressed" and just took what they learned and applied it to their "neighbors."
Sounds like you're making excuses to be anti-Semitic.
You forget to mention how they genocided and ghettoized the Palestinians while continuously lebensrauming the ghettos smaller and smaller
KEEP THE POLITICS IN THE POL THREAD, PEOPLE!!
We have had a Containment Breach.
Hating all Jews for being Jews = Anti-Semitic
Hatining a faction of fascist Jews (Zionists) for being fascists =/= Anti-Semitic
I understand that nuance is difficult for the conservative brain to comprehend though.
I'm just yank'n your chain. I don't care for Zionist either. Speaking of nuance. Which one of lecturing people about the degeneracy being exclusive to Nazi's?
Kind'a seems like moving the goal post.
It's easier to just shout "Nazi" or "chud" when you don't have an an argument.
>>3629321>It's easier to just shout "cope" or "seethe" when you don't have an an argument.
that is probably true
There has not been a Nazi since 1945 and Saucy still looks under his bed for them each night.
you realize neither that post nor the post it was replying to were me, right?
>There has not been a Cummunist since 1991
I can make bizarre unfactual comments too!
What you wrote:>>You'll just keep moving the goal posts and trying to stick your dick into children's spaces.
What I wrote:>>But I dare you to try to argue that banning kids from essentially adult-oriented gatherings would completely solve the problem of a handful of individuals potentially wanting to perv on them.
We were talking specifically about furry conventions. AS IN, NOT CHILDREN'S SPACES. I don't give the tiniest amount of fucks about how many restrictions you want to impose on actual children's spaces.
Who was shifting the goalposts again you lying fuck?
>>3629329>>There has not been a Nazi since 1945 and Saucy still looks under his bed for them each night.
Being extremely charitable
I'd say we could include in the category of Nazi modern philosophical National Socialists (people like Greg Johnson who has headass takes like "I can't stop myself from watching porn therefore the state needs to ban it"), edgy "Neo-Nazi" larpers (probably Andrew Anglin would count) and maybe, just maybe
white identitarians who are specifically not National Socialists but would like some kind of Ethnostate anyway (ex. uncle Jared).
That still leaves us with barely a couple of tens of thousands of people. They couldn't get more than a few hundred together at the Unite the Right rally.
That moron is literally whining about 0.01% of the population.
Meanwhile we have millions, tens of million of morons being indoctrinated into the left wing versions of socialism in universities.
Ban kids from furry conventions.
You're a fucking retard if you think normies will accept you if you hide the sexual shit enough from them. Everybody knows furry is sexual. Might as well embrace the truth than trying desperately to rewrite it.
How the fuck are you going to ban kids from a hotel lobby? How about not parading around in your crusty murrsuit in public?
Unattended children have no business being in a hotel lobby. And convention spaces need to be 18+. Kids don't belong there anyway.
The lobby is a public space you selfish fucking coomer. Rent a private venue that's 18+ only to have your orgy in and learn to keep your dick in your pants. The entire world doesn't have to capitulate to your fetish.
You don't know shit.
It's a privately owned public space and the owner could impose whatever restrictions on it they want, including banning minors from entering for as long as a convention takes place, they could separate the areas off into general public and adult only, and that would obviously be the sane choice.
Nah, not fucking feeling like it. Go fuck yourself you sexually repressed authoritarian fuck. Fetishes are good, if you disagree, this isn't the fandom for you and this isn't the site for you. The door's that way.
Why aren't you gone yet? You clearly don't belong here.
Don't seem to mind though when drag queens do it though do ya?
Drag fags are shitheads too. Never said otherwise. Same goes for fetishists parading around in their pup play fetish gear in public. My shitty internet keeps making my ID change. I'm the tranny hating gay that posted >>3628898>>3629352
I hope you get hatecrimed. You'd deserve it.
maybe you should get a refund from the art school
Yeah I'll probably might go burn it down once I get a car
When I went to Morphicon, when that was a thing, they had you wear special badges to show that you were 18.
you can't block people from going into the lobby, but you can block people from going into specific rooms that you reserved.
How did we stray so far
Can't spell Anubis without Bi or Anus
I hate that guy for making me end up on the same side of the argument as you two filthy commies.
Of course assuming your buddy isn't gonna pull some TERF shit on us.