................

[Gnomad]

Re: ................

some people let animals fuck them

Some people TRAIN animals to fuck them. Rarely do animals attempt to engage in actual sexual activity with other species. There's a difference between having sex and showing dominance. Though, dolphins are notorious for trying to have sex with other species, so it's obviously not the same for all animals.

[Ars Sycro]

Re: ................

And dogs. Dogs will hump anything.

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

My female dog humps peoples legs. She does it when she's otherwise being playful and I read that its not necessarily an outright sexual thing for them. Puppies do it during play and then yes there's the dominance displays. It bothers people though, including me lol, so I discourage her from doing it.
---

Some people TRAIN animals to fuck them. Rarely do animals attempt to engage in actual sexual activity with other species. There's a difference between having sex and showing dominance. Though, dolphins are notorious for trying to have sex with other species, so it's obviously not the same for all animals.

Maybe dolphins are smart enough to give sexual consent. Anyone remember dolphinsex.org or whatever the url was

[Gnomad]

Re: ................

But that's not a sexual thing with dogs, that's a dominance thing. There is a difference.
---
After thinking about it, and this definitely promises the loss on this debate for me, I can't actually ethically justify eating an animal as completely OK, but then turn around and say "Fucking that cow is wrong." So, end of discussion, for me at least. It disgusts me, but I'm not in a position to condemn.

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

I don't think it'd be possible to ride a horse without any sort of consent from the animal. Rodeo aside.

I don't think it'd be possible to fuck a horse without it kicking you in the head if it felt like it was being harmed

Fucking an animal is like sexually taking advantage of a retard. I have a point I'm trying to make I promise. I mean its not fair or moral for one intellectual and self aware being to engage in sexual activities with something on a whole lower prong on the ladder. Anyway, is it legal to fuck retards? Are thy able to give consent? They are often said to have the mind of a child...

If you want to take that stance, then the act of buying a pet is morally wrong.
And training a pet to do anything would be slavery

Also a woman in jail said dogs can do things with their dicks no human men can. Yuckkkkk

... Man that's creepy

Some people TRAIN animals to fuck them. Rarely do animals attempt to engage in actual sexual activity with other species. There's a difference between having sex and showing dominance. Though, dolphins are notorious for trying to have sex with other species, so it's obviously not the same for all animals.

Animals are trained to do a lot of things with no consent.

Maybe dolphins are smart enough to give sexual consent.

I doubt it..... But maybe whales are

After thinking about it, and this definitely promises the loss on this debate for me, I can't actually ethically justify eating an animal as completely OK, but then turn around and say "Fucking that cow is wrong." So, end of discussion, for me at least. It disgusts me, but I'm not in a position to condemn.

That's a good point. Although it's taking a step further than what I was arguing. I'm just saying that there are probably animals that you can have sex with without hurting them mentally or physically (there have been studies done on this... That I'd feel creepy googling for), so therefore I can't see why that should be illegal.

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

I finally got a haircut.. No more hippie viking

[noclevername]

Re: ................

Thank god. I was sitting here wondering about that.

[cribble]

Re: ................

No more hippie viking

Just 100% Viking now.

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

how hereditary do you suppose intelligence is? If we go a little nature/nurture neutral on the subject and say at least a range of intelligence to be developed is inherited, isn't insulting or devaluing another person on the basis of intelligence just as "shallow" and baseless, in a sense, as doing so on the basis of physical appearance? i mean in that case, both are, to some extent, hereditary and beyond that person's control, so all the ugly nerdlings out there dissing on unintelligent people are kind of tit for tat.

i mean yeah generally speaking, ones intelligence is usually more beneficial to society than ones looks, but can one party deserve insults and the other not when neither trait has much to do with character and both have more to do with who your parents were?

if this is the case, i cant help but see a classic uppity-hypocrite case here among the aforementioned ugly nerdlings constantly asserting their intellectual superiority.

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

There's a difference between unintelligence and willful ignorance/refusal to learn.

The first one is fine. The latter is condemnable regardless of intelligence level


Especially if you take pride in how little you know about a subject. Like some religious people do about evolution, some musicians do about not knowing theory, general publics pride in not knowing science/not being a geek etc

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

I was referring to intelligence not really knowledge. Even so I don't think there is anything really wrong with pure ignorance- everyone has topics they are ignorant on i'm sure. The problem is people usually just label those who make assumptions and automatic judgments on things they are ignorant on as simply ignorant, but it's probably better described as "judging despite ignorance".

then you have people who obsess over learning obscure knowledge so they can feel smarter than everyone else. Those people are asses.

[Gnomad]

Re: ................

I don't know anyone like that. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, either.

[Knifeboy]

Re: ................

Even so I don't think there is anything really wrong with pure ignorance

I didn't say anything was wrong with ignorance in itself

The problem is people usually just label those who make assumptions and automatic judgments on things they are ignorant on as simply ignorant, but it's probably better described as "judging despite ignorance"..

Judging despite ignorance is pretty bad tbh especially if you don't acknowledge it

[AnewKINDofFEELING]

Re: ................

how hereditary do you suppose intelligence is? If we go a little nature/nurture neutral on the subject and say at least a range of intelligence to be developed is inherited, isn't insulting or devaluing another person on the basis of intelligence just as "shallow" and baseless, in a sense, as doing so on the basis of physical appearance? i mean in that case, both are, to some extent, hereditary and beyond that person's control, so all the ugly nerdlings out there dissing on unintelligent people are kind of tit for tat.

i mean yeah generally speaking, ones intelligence is usually more beneficial to society than ones looks, but can one party deserve insults and the other not when neither trait has much to do with character and both have more to do with who your parents were?

if this is the case, i cant help but see a classic uppity-hypocrite case here among the aforementioned ugly nerdlings constantly asserting their intellectual superiority.

I'm as sexy as hell and as sharp as a tack. I am condescending to all.
---

then you have people who obsess over learning obscure knowledge so they can feel smarter than everyone else. Those people are asses.

I have to kind of offer an arguing point here. I am one of those people that is full of obscure knowledge. It's not that I seek out obscure knowledge so that I know something that you don't. I just seek out knowledge and I'm lucky enough to absorb and process it very easily. I don't feel guilty about being learned.

My intelligence is my biggest blessing in life. The problem arises when you interject your knowledge into another person's thoughts or conversations. They tend to dislike that and label you a know-it-all.

[Penguin88]

Re: ................

i think interjecting obscure knowledge into conversation makes you look like a "know-it-all" because chances are, people are focused on the topic and adding in unnecessary information that nobody but you cares about at that time seems selfish. i think the assumption about that person's motive is that merely mentioning the obscure fact is rewarding to the individual and that seems to lead to the impression that the person is bragging or showing off.

i process and retain facts and information pretty well also but i usually don't mention my knowledge about something, even if the person i am talking to made a statement i know to be incorrect, unless it's going to help the conversation. correcting people about unimportant things is usually counterproductive to effective communication and to reinforcing relationships. the only time i correct someone is when they are a facts snob and i catch them when they are wrong about something. legitimately correcting a facts snob feels so right.

and gnomad i was getting at an observation of what i feel to be hypocrisy that i see among a number of younger pseudointellectuals (internets is especially full of these types)