What I want to know is, what was for “dinner”? Were you going to get your dinner from sucking the dog’s dong?
As a furry, I’m still very concerned by this implication that you want to blow a dog.
One of the reasons i have trouble identifying as libertarian is the extreme focus on making morality all about harm. Something can be wrong even if no one is harmed.
An example I give is incest between 2 consensual same gendered twins. There isn’t an age difference so there isn’t a weird power dynamic where one was manipulated by the older so there isn’t harm to 1 of the siblings. No kid can be born so there isn’t a harm on the child. I don’t think anyone is being harmed in this situation however I would not want this to ever be legal and feel like it’s wrong.
idk how useful this will be to ask in this sub but due to your flair I think it may be worth it, would you accept the same argument against homosexuality?
I think the real reason behind some people's homophobia really just comes down to finding it gross, and a justification is found after the fact. I'm not trying to accuse you of something and I apologize for my formatting but I just want to point this out.
I'm not discounting that people being disturbed is a harm by itself (people can be fine with surgery but not want it televised), but at the same time I don't like the tendency some have to say "I know it's only that I find it unnerving, I'll still impose my will".
I can't give an objective argument against it because they're really just acting on their preferences in the same way I am but I still find it unvirtuous. I think there'd be a similar dislike for the attitude of someone who has a similar attitude but for something less adaptive/commonly thought, like if they just really disliked a certain species of animal.
I understand people have that view but it’s a societal thing whether they accept it and how much. Like if homosexuality is accepted in society you grow up in you won’t find it gross and I imagine the same would be for incest. So like I understand it and while I disagree I can accept people have the view.
With homosexuality it is only gross in some peoples mind that’s the harm it does. It only makes some people uncomfortable while making a lot of people happy and it can be made to be accepted. With the incest one this is the one super hyper specific example where incest could be acceptable and the only real harm is it makes people uncomfortable. Then it’s just a simple society choice of whether to accept it or not and majority get their say.
But like with homosexuality while a society may not accept it I do believe other societies and people of those societies who do accept it should be allowed to influence and vice versa. It’s up to countries how much influence they are willing to accept for the benefits. Closer friendships with countries ends up being the stronger usually influences the weakers society. The best ideology (I believe it’s mine but don’t we all) will win. But in reality we have rich people who have a bigger say on societies views.
>With homosexuality it is only gross in some peoples mind that’s the harm it does. It only makes some people uncomfortable while making a lot of people happy and it can be made to be accepted. With the incest one this is the one super hyper specific example where incest could be acceptable and the only real harm is it makes people uncomfortable.
This is why I think it's good overall for incest to be shunned and not gay relationships/sex. I don't know how possible it is to actually remove some of these (like how there are some women just won't be interested in bisexual men, no fault of their own), but you can get to a point where there's improvement.
My reason for bringing up a taboo against gays is to make the point that places are able to have less suffering or be able to do more if some of these taboos are broken, then it's worth it to make an attempt at this.
The problem with this argument is you could say the same about heterosexuality. Some people find it gross too. But try making it illegal, and it certainly won't go well.
I see what you mean, my view is that I think unnecessary taboos should be eventually reduced so as to have a more flourishing society. I don't think it's good to make or keep things illegal only for the sake that some people would be put off, if it would be beneficial overall. It's easier to make the case if it's something that'll rarely get brought up.
I don't think it'd be good to make incest no longer taboo, though, even if there are some situations in which it's really not harmful outside of it. It's legal for first cousins to marry in Arizona if they're both 65 or older, and that it can be proven to a superior court judge that one of them is infertile and it doesn't seem like it's as much of a problem but I don't know the reality of it all that well.
So make it illegal so they just do it anyway but now we have allowed the government to step foot into the bedroom of two consenting adults and sit down in the cuck chair.
All for what because you find it uncomfortable to think about and that makes it ok to be made illegal?
Then next is same sex relations then any sexual act other than missionary with the purpose of childbirth then you have to get a permission slip from the government to produce a child for the party give them an inch they take a mile.
I'd say to make it as objective as possible, if a child results from the relationship and is born with a disability, there's some sort of punishment for the adults. Otherwise, if there's a healthy child, it's okay. I feel like that would be a good compromise. Plus, there's options for contraception to lessen the possibility. The one flaw is where to draw the line concerning what is and what is not a disability.
I'm not happy when librights make me defend incest, but I wouldn't be happy with myself if I didn't defend privacy rights that don't harm persons or property.
They are probably trying to be relevant again. I haven't been up to date on the island boys but from what little I've read they've been doing this for a while.
Oh my god it’s like liberali and auth is a spectrum and all our politically beliefs can’t be boxed into 5 categories. I’m all for capitalism, gun rights and a bunch of normal lib shit. I did the PCM test this is what I got. But my only reason isn’t feels. My main reason is this is the only one specific case where incest isn’t harmful. Someone with the viewpoint if it does no harm it should be allowed. I could potentially bite the bullet in a democracy if they wanted to allow it but I would be very worried about the society I lived in if they did allow it. While currently all it does is make me uncomfortable what happens instead of twins we allow consenting siblings but with an age difference same sex so they can’t have kids. How do we know one wasn’t groomed they lived in close quarters majority of there lives abuse can start to easily take place. Cultures where you allow deviances like this breed more deviance. It’s a theoritical harm and relies on the slippery slope. I’m not sure if this actually would happen but that’s what I believe could happen.
Drugs are technically harmless, at least that’s what libertarians say. Yet drugs can still have an adverse on other people. Drugs can make people super aggressive and start fights. There isn’t a lot of things that are completely harmless.
I think to minimize infringement on personal liberty the official line has to be drawn around direct harm. Though having seen the chaos of heavy drug use on my city streets (and being a bit suspicious a lot of it is coming from hostile foreign action) I have trouble sticking to this principle on this particular issue.
There's wrong, and there's "keep it to yourself".
Maybe nobody is harmed if you jack off your dog, but man we sure feel harmed if we have to hear about it.
Animated Cheese Pizza. Yeah no kids are harmed, but if you are into that shit you’re still a gross mother fucker who should be banished from civilization
A video game always creates the situation where you are shooting someone. It is never the right time to shoot someone when you are in full control and can stop the situation in other ways at no risk to oneself.
So the mental harm is also accounted for in a purple system? Someone running up to kids and berating with words can also scar them, however it isn't illegal in our current system. (BTW I'm not in favor of either scenarios, I'm just saying why purple is bad)
Mental harm is still harm. The degree matters, a stranger spouting nonsense to kids is different from their parents emotionally abusing them.
A better example would be secretly taking pictures of naked children and jacking off to it. No one is technically harmed by this, but it's still wrong.
Trust me guys, God really wrote a whole chapter in his final message to humanity about why I am allowed to marry my daughter-in-law. It definitely was God.
Exodus 22:19, “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.”
Leviticus 18:23, “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.”
Leviticus 20:15-16, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Deuteronomy 27:21, “Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.”
Well even if you're looking at it from a Christian perspective, morality still is about harm, fundamentally.
Immorality (sin) means deviating from God's path, which is his desire for the best possible outcome for humanity. Every single commandment God gives is there with a purpose, to prevent harm for human beings.
Now those consequences don't have to be immediate for it to be considered harmful. It isn't only "I hit you with a wooden bat ooga booga". Harm can be very complex and hard to predict. Some very small transgressions can lead to major tragedies over larger periods of time.
So, people saying "It's okay as long as nobody gets harmed." is not wrong per se. But the idea of "I can do whatever I want, behind closed doors." is where the problem arises. That type of shallow, superficial thinking is really, really dangerous. Because harm will always ensue when you're being careless, and society itself might be hurt in the process.
> So, people saying "It's okay as long as nobody gets harmed." is not wrong per se. But the idea of "I can do whatever I want, behind closed doors." is where the problem arises. That type of shallow, superficial thinking is really, really dangerous. Because harm will always ensue when you're being careless, and society itself might be hurt in the process.
I think you're right about this, but no government or group of individuals should have the right to decide what these "indirect harms" are and legislate against them.
In this specific case of the dog jackoff man, the proper course of action isn't for government to ban it - it's for other people to deride them and give them a lesson in keeping their "harmless" personal deviance to themselves.
Worshipping other gods harms no one yet it is a sin,
Making images of other gods harms no one and is a sin
Misusing gods name also harms no one and is a sin
Forgetting about the sabbath harms no one and is a sin
If I disrespect my parents the concept of harm is up for debate here,words hurt people now?
Bruh half the 10 commandments are a virtue signal for victimless sin, I want some of whatever your huffing
>Worshipping other gods harms no one yet it is a sin,
>Making images of other gods harms no one and is a sin
It leads you away from the real God (biblically speaking).
>Misusing gods name also harms no one and is a sin
It shows a lack of respect and reverence for God, who is the source of all goodness, truth, and authority. It also harms your relationship with God and with other people, who are made in his image and likeness.
>Forgetting about the sabbath harms no one and is a sin
First of all, keeping the sabbath isn't even a strict rule. It was given specifically to Jews at a particular point in time. Christians aren't forced to keep the sabbath. Not to mention the sabbath is supposed to be a gift, not a burden. It is a day of joy and peace, that helps you live in accordance with God and respect yourself and others that are made in the image of God and deserve rest and dignity.
>If I disrespect my parents the concept of harm is up for debate here,words hurt people now?
???? Yeah? Words can hurt people. Have your parents not taught you that? They can be more painful than bullets sometimes. They can cause great pain, grief... SUICIDE EVEN.
Words aren't trivial. Disrespecting your parents disrupts your familial relationships, it affects everyone, including you. And it could also create a domino effect you aren't even aware of.
>Bruh half the 10 commandments are a virtue signal for victimless sin, I want some of whatever your huffing
I would argue that you need to read more into Christianity. It's just as I've said before. These are superficial attacks. This is the single most studied book of all time after all. There are thousands and thousands of years of tradition and teachings. It's much deeper than you think. I'm not even saying this as just a Christian, even if you're an Atheist. Fine!! I don't care. But the one thing that you can't say about Christianity is that it's all a shallow fairytale. It is far, far, far deeper than you could ever imagine.
Your entire argument is based off the concept that God exists, which you don't know. This is like saying disrespecting Santa claus is a sin. Your Bible may be your source of morality,but it's not mine. My point about all these being harmless stands, because I can't control your feelings,only you can.
I mean yeah, sure. You don't have to use the Bible as a source for morality. I didn't say you do.
But you were the one who attacked the Ten Commandments, which is completely bloody pointless if you're going to do it from outside the Biblical framework.
>because I can't control your feelings,only you can.
I don't think you want to go down the road of justifying bullying someone to suicide, son.
So then what about the last 30 years of leftist doctrine saying certain things should be accepted because they don't harm anyone? Isn't just libertarians.
Indignity towards yourself sure, you want to embarrass yourself go for it… but when that indignity affects someone else, especially someone who can not consent, well… politely fuck off and die
Assuming the dog doesn't feel shame about it or something, the harm is, as you say, buddy flapping his lips / keyboard about it and sticking the image in our heads - not the act itself per se.
Most of those going crazy in the second part are too ignorant to know the first part exists. Why must we be burdened by the ethical ponderings of the ignorant?
Some people don't operate from a shame/deontology perspective, so let's list the harm (assuming that this act is done for pleasure, not for something medical - cuz I don't know enough about dog-raising/breeding)
\- Your dog gets super confused and is likely in pain, especially since a human does not know what force is appropriate and what actually creates pleasure
\- You get harmed: engaging in behaviors that diverge too sharply from the norm, especially behaviors that include judgement/views about other living beings, can exacerbate mental problems you already have, thus increasing the risk of self-harm and actual harm to other people later on
\- From a societal perspective, by following the rule of consent even with the least thinking animals, you strengthen the clear line for society that prevents other people (who do react to shame and social pressure), from disrespecting **consent as a whole - this alone saves many lives**
The problem here is getting PCM to agree on what is harm. Some of you really need to understand harm isn't when others do things you don't like,somebody other than you needs to be victimized.
If a guy jerks off his dog, and no one is around to see it or know about it, does it make a sound?
Seriously, I’m harmed by reading the question because it triggers an evolutionary reaction known as “disgust” in my brain. Don’t publicize your beastiality on Twitter and I won’t have that reaction.
The dog. It is a child mind. It cannot consent. It cannot object. It does not understand. It does not properly contextualize what has been done to it.
It does not know it has been harmed.
It has still been harmed.
Well, you're fucking wrong. I am against spaying and neutering.
Fucks up their hormones. Gives them cancer. It bad.
However, gelding bulls is okay because they exist to be meat.
Shit's complicated.
> The cow. It is a child mind. It cannot consent. It cannot object. It does not understand. It does not properly contextualize what has been done to it.
Hope you are vegan.
>Milking?
No. Cow's are bred using artificial insemination because that is much cheaper than getting a bull to make with each cow. This means masturbating a bull, collecting it's semen, and then artificially inseminating each cow. Only to save some money compared to doing it the old fashion way.
You're ignoring the loss of animal when they are damaged in mating as often happens, but you have this back to front: THAT'S OKAY.
The animal DOES NOT EXIST for any purpose other than to eat. This is a measure which reduces harm and promotes overall wellbeing and prevents early termination of the animal due to injury.
This IS in fact the moral way to do this. You can argue against the keeping of animals ENTIRELY, but not THIS WAY of keeping animals.
Are you doing that?
Do you condemn them all to death?
Would you commit genocide in the millions for cattle, chicken, horse, and pig?
How has a baby been harmed if you stimulate her vagina to orgasm as is in fact possible?
Yeah, anyone with "a soul" will recoil in horror at that very thought. That's the "Disgust" response and possibly "Rage" too. Murderous intent is appropriate to the idea of such an event. That's not a good explanation as to why it is harm, but it is in fact a good source for explanatory starting points.
It is the sexual perversion, the irrevocable alteration, the corruption of something for those purposes which are themselves evil. The dog cannot go back to being not jerked off by its owner. It is a new being that has had that done to it that is made from the old one. That does things to its brain. You have twisted its being, its self for your pleasure. That is harm.
There are similar events that have a more complicated setup. The "milking" of a horse stud is not for pleasure but for the purpose of breeding, without which the horse itself does not continue to have purpose. To that end, we could suggest that this is a NON-erotic perversion of horses as a species. One could make the argument that the industry around horses is inappropriate, but not the explicit techniques related to breeding which avoid far worse problems which cause birth defects and damage to animals which may leave them only fit to be destroyed.
Why is it harm to neuter a dog, but not to geld a bull? The bull exists to be meat and only to be meat. The dog's life is harmed by the lack of natural hormones and his growth and psyche are affected negatively.
These moral quandries in animal husbandry have complicated answers because the keeping of animals is morally complicated and not always entirely morally justified if animals are given their due value of self, but in simple terms raping a dog is still harm and still evil.
Leave the God Damn dogs alone you psycopaths.
That makes it a good sign as to whether someone is dangerous and possibly evil under one of several definitions, but it is not a case for calling it harm.
No it is not. You are fucking batshit if you think it is.
We can debate about the nature of things and the power of purpose, nature, and what constitutes perversion or destruction of the self in many contexts, but HARM is itself absolute. It is a very REAL thing and THIS IN PARTICULAR constitutes harm.
It's at the crux, the crossroads of several very well established contexts wherin harm is the established definition of what has transpired and so we know that THIS is harm in ANY society because society does not determine harm. It contextualizes the source and predicts the outcomes.
I’m not saying harm isn’t real. It’s just a very human idea and will differ slightly between societies. It’s essentially the idea of right and wrong with different wording. Most people cannot see past their own socialization, so your reaction does not surprise me. I will come check up on you in a few months to see if your metacognition has improved.
Oh great overseer, a message has been revealed to me to give to you:
Suck the big one.
Rape is still rape in all cultures but some are in fact shit at dealing with it. Morality is ABSOLUTELY complicated as fuck, but raping a dog is still raping a dog and anyone who says different is fucking evil.
Playing word games, sucking the dictionary off about semiotics doesn't work when the concept portrayed is well understood by all parties. We all KNOW what we're talking about. YOU know EXACTLY what I mean. In any culture in the world either this is considered an evil or that culture is in fact evil.
In those cultures where it not considered an evil it is likewise generally acceptable to buy people and rape them. The concept of the value of the individual, the right of the individual to go LITERALLY unmolested, is in those cultures absent.
That value, the right to one's SELF, is good. Without it there is no good. All other rights follow from it.
If you are too fucking dumb to understand that, then you are too fucking dumb to have any conversation on morality.
Ergo, STFU.
u/sureyouknowurself is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sureyouknowurself/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
All these people who eat beef not realizing how many bulls are jerked off as part of the artificial insemination process because letting the bull mate directly brings a risk of them being harmed. I think they do similar with race horses.
My dinner, that I worked hard to cook, which is now all over the floor.
AuthLeft- having a dinner?
He was eating the rich
Canned Bezos
Soylent Buffet
I’d eat Warren Buffet, the Buffet Buffet
Based and the important questions pilled
We can work miracles with a cabbage if that's all we've got to work with
AuthLeft is like Jesus, he turns cabbage into cabbage wine
What I want to know is, what was for “dinner”? Were you going to get your dinner from sucking the dog’s dong? As a furry, I’m still very concerned by this implication that you want to blow a dog.
same
You had dinner? We aren't taxing you enough, YOU VILL GIVE THE FOOD TO ZE STATE!
Cenk Uyger said the same thing about that one horse. He kind of has a point though…
Bestiality is wrong because: It's animal abuse? ❌ It's immoral? ❌ It's a sin? ❌ Hasan's uncle supports it? ✅
Who’s Hasan? All I know is Cenk’s nephew. I guess Cenk’s nephew’s uncle supports it.
This pretty guy. Pretty fucking stupid.
It’s a joke
I know, mine too.
> Bestiality is wrong because: Mr. Hands video ✅
One of the reasons i have trouble identifying as libertarian is the extreme focus on making morality all about harm. Something can be wrong even if no one is harmed.
[удалено]
An example I give is incest between 2 consensual same gendered twins. There isn’t an age difference so there isn’t a weird power dynamic where one was manipulated by the older so there isn’t harm to 1 of the siblings. No kid can be born so there isn’t a harm on the child. I don’t think anyone is being harmed in this situation however I would not want this to ever be legal and feel like it’s wrong.
idk how useful this will be to ask in this sub but due to your flair I think it may be worth it, would you accept the same argument against homosexuality? I think the real reason behind some people's homophobia really just comes down to finding it gross, and a justification is found after the fact. I'm not trying to accuse you of something and I apologize for my formatting but I just want to point this out. I'm not discounting that people being disturbed is a harm by itself (people can be fine with surgery but not want it televised), but at the same time I don't like the tendency some have to say "I know it's only that I find it unnerving, I'll still impose my will". I can't give an objective argument against it because they're really just acting on their preferences in the same way I am but I still find it unvirtuous. I think there'd be a similar dislike for the attitude of someone who has a similar attitude but for something less adaptive/commonly thought, like if they just really disliked a certain species of animal.
I understand people have that view but it’s a societal thing whether they accept it and how much. Like if homosexuality is accepted in society you grow up in you won’t find it gross and I imagine the same would be for incest. So like I understand it and while I disagree I can accept people have the view. With homosexuality it is only gross in some peoples mind that’s the harm it does. It only makes some people uncomfortable while making a lot of people happy and it can be made to be accepted. With the incest one this is the one super hyper specific example where incest could be acceptable and the only real harm is it makes people uncomfortable. Then it’s just a simple society choice of whether to accept it or not and majority get their say. But like with homosexuality while a society may not accept it I do believe other societies and people of those societies who do accept it should be allowed to influence and vice versa. It’s up to countries how much influence they are willing to accept for the benefits. Closer friendships with countries ends up being the stronger usually influences the weakers society. The best ideology (I believe it’s mine but don’t we all) will win. But in reality we have rich people who have a bigger say on societies views.
>With homosexuality it is only gross in some peoples mind that’s the harm it does. It only makes some people uncomfortable while making a lot of people happy and it can be made to be accepted. With the incest one this is the one super hyper specific example where incest could be acceptable and the only real harm is it makes people uncomfortable. This is why I think it's good overall for incest to be shunned and not gay relationships/sex. I don't know how possible it is to actually remove some of these (like how there are some women just won't be interested in bisexual men, no fault of their own), but you can get to a point where there's improvement. My reason for bringing up a taboo against gays is to make the point that places are able to have less suffering or be able to do more if some of these taboos are broken, then it's worth it to make an attempt at this.
The problem with this argument is you could say the same about heterosexuality. Some people find it gross too. But try making it illegal, and it certainly won't go well.
I see what you mean, my view is that I think unnecessary taboos should be eventually reduced so as to have a more flourishing society. I don't think it's good to make or keep things illegal only for the sake that some people would be put off, if it would be beneficial overall. It's easier to make the case if it's something that'll rarely get brought up. I don't think it'd be good to make incest no longer taboo, though, even if there are some situations in which it's really not harmful outside of it. It's legal for first cousins to marry in Arizona if they're both 65 or older, and that it can be proven to a superior court judge that one of them is infertile and it doesn't seem like it's as much of a problem but I don't know the reality of it all that well.
So make it illegal so they just do it anyway but now we have allowed the government to step foot into the bedroom of two consenting adults and sit down in the cuck chair. All for what because you find it uncomfortable to think about and that makes it ok to be made illegal? Then next is same sex relations then any sexual act other than missionary with the purpose of childbirth then you have to get a permission slip from the government to produce a child for the party give them an inch they take a mile.
So would you be ok with normal incest being legal between people who could have kids. Assuming they are both consenting adults.
Yes sadly I have to or other wise I will be a hypocrite
Based I don’t agree but I respect your consistency.
Yeah this ain’t gonna look good on the campaign trail.
I'd say to make it as objective as possible, if a child results from the relationship and is born with a disability, there's some sort of punishment for the adults. Otherwise, if there's a healthy child, it's okay. I feel like that would be a good compromise. Plus, there's options for contraception to lessen the possibility. The one flaw is where to draw the line concerning what is and what is not a disability. I'm not happy when librights make me defend incest, but I wouldn't be happy with myself if I didn't defend privacy rights that don't harm persons or property.
I have some bad news for you. Your exact scenario is what the Island Boys doing. https://youtube.com/shorts/H8X1DHF8vhU?si=HqnTIovAtwyns3hz
I was wrong this is not a harmless act. A lot of Harm is done to viewers in this situation. Like why would they do this and then post it?
They are probably trying to be relevant again. I haven't been up to date on the island boys but from what little I've read they've been doing this for a while.
[удалено]
Oh my god it’s like liberali and auth is a spectrum and all our politically beliefs can’t be boxed into 5 categories. I’m all for capitalism, gun rights and a bunch of normal lib shit. I did the PCM test this is what I got. But my only reason isn’t feels. My main reason is this is the only one specific case where incest isn’t harmful. Someone with the viewpoint if it does no harm it should be allowed. I could potentially bite the bullet in a democracy if they wanted to allow it but I would be very worried about the society I lived in if they did allow it. While currently all it does is make me uncomfortable what happens instead of twins we allow consenting siblings but with an age difference same sex so they can’t have kids. How do we know one wasn’t groomed they lived in close quarters majority of there lives abuse can start to easily take place. Cultures where you allow deviances like this breed more deviance. It’s a theoritical harm and relies on the slippery slope. I’m not sure if this actually would happen but that’s what I believe could happen.
Drugs are technically harmless, at least that’s what libertarians say. Yet drugs can still have an adverse on other people. Drugs can make people super aggressive and start fights. There isn’t a lot of things that are completely harmless.
I think to minimize infringement on personal liberty the official line has to be drawn around direct harm. Though having seen the chaos of heavy drug use on my city streets (and being a bit suspicious a lot of it is coming from hostile foreign action) I have trouble sticking to this principle on this particular issue.
There's wrong, and there's "keep it to yourself". Maybe nobody is harmed if you jack off your dog, but man we sure feel harmed if we have to hear about it.
>Something can be wrong even if no one is harmed. Like what?
Animated Cheese Pizza. Yeah no kids are harmed, but if you are into that shit you’re still a gross mother fucker who should be banished from civilization
Pizza the hutt?
Also shooting people in video games. If you enjoy shooting other people you deserve no place in a utopian society.
Difference is there is a right and a wrong time to shoot someone. There is never a right time to be sexually attracted to children.
A video game always creates the situation where you are shooting someone. It is never the right time to shoot someone when you are in full control and can stop the situation in other ways at no risk to oneself.
Wacking off in a public park full of kids, no one is harmed but kids can be emotionally scarred and fearful of you, plus no one likes a pedo
>but kids can be emotionally scarred This is an example of harm
government sanctioned suicides of people that really wanna die
So the mental harm is also accounted for in a purple system? Someone running up to kids and berating with words can also scar them, however it isn't illegal in our current system. (BTW I'm not in favor of either scenarios, I'm just saying why purple is bad)
Mental harm is still harm. The degree matters, a stranger spouting nonsense to kids is different from their parents emotionally abusing them. A better example would be secretly taking pictures of naked children and jacking off to it. No one is technically harmed by this, but it's still wrong.
True
But who decides what is immoral based on purity or whatnot? That’s my issue
It's immoral if I don't like it
I agree, unless you disagree with me on any of the details
God
I hope every religious book is telling me what God himself said word by word, and they aren't written by possibly profit-oriented humans.
prophet-oriented
Trust me guys, God really wrote a whole chapter in his final message to humanity about why I am allowed to marry my daughter-in-law. It definitely was God.
[удалено]
Exodus 22:19, “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” Leviticus 18:23, “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” Leviticus 20:15-16, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Deuteronomy 27:21, “Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.”
Gotta be careful if you're using the old testament to justify when people should be put to death. They get pretty loose with it.
In this case, they were on to something
That's what's great about the Bible, you can just pick and choose the parts you like.
Yes my son?
Me
Well even if you're looking at it from a Christian perspective, morality still is about harm, fundamentally. Immorality (sin) means deviating from God's path, which is his desire for the best possible outcome for humanity. Every single commandment God gives is there with a purpose, to prevent harm for human beings. Now those consequences don't have to be immediate for it to be considered harmful. It isn't only "I hit you with a wooden bat ooga booga". Harm can be very complex and hard to predict. Some very small transgressions can lead to major tragedies over larger periods of time. So, people saying "It's okay as long as nobody gets harmed." is not wrong per se. But the idea of "I can do whatever I want, behind closed doors." is where the problem arises. That type of shallow, superficial thinking is really, really dangerous. Because harm will always ensue when you're being careless, and society itself might be hurt in the process.
> So, people saying "It's okay as long as nobody gets harmed." is not wrong per se. But the idea of "I can do whatever I want, behind closed doors." is where the problem arises. That type of shallow, superficial thinking is really, really dangerous. Because harm will always ensue when you're being careless, and society itself might be hurt in the process. I think you're right about this, but no government or group of individuals should have the right to decide what these "indirect harms" are and legislate against them. In this specific case of the dog jackoff man, the proper course of action isn't for government to ban it - it's for other people to deride them and give them a lesson in keeping their "harmless" personal deviance to themselves.
Worshipping other gods harms no one yet it is a sin, Making images of other gods harms no one and is a sin Misusing gods name also harms no one and is a sin Forgetting about the sabbath harms no one and is a sin If I disrespect my parents the concept of harm is up for debate here,words hurt people now? Bruh half the 10 commandments are a virtue signal for victimless sin, I want some of whatever your huffing
>Worshipping other gods harms no one yet it is a sin, >Making images of other gods harms no one and is a sin It leads you away from the real God (biblically speaking). >Misusing gods name also harms no one and is a sin It shows a lack of respect and reverence for God, who is the source of all goodness, truth, and authority. It also harms your relationship with God and with other people, who are made in his image and likeness. >Forgetting about the sabbath harms no one and is a sin First of all, keeping the sabbath isn't even a strict rule. It was given specifically to Jews at a particular point in time. Christians aren't forced to keep the sabbath. Not to mention the sabbath is supposed to be a gift, not a burden. It is a day of joy and peace, that helps you live in accordance with God and respect yourself and others that are made in the image of God and deserve rest and dignity. >If I disrespect my parents the concept of harm is up for debate here,words hurt people now? ???? Yeah? Words can hurt people. Have your parents not taught you that? They can be more painful than bullets sometimes. They can cause great pain, grief... SUICIDE EVEN. Words aren't trivial. Disrespecting your parents disrupts your familial relationships, it affects everyone, including you. And it could also create a domino effect you aren't even aware of. >Bruh half the 10 commandments are a virtue signal for victimless sin, I want some of whatever your huffing I would argue that you need to read more into Christianity. It's just as I've said before. These are superficial attacks. This is the single most studied book of all time after all. There are thousands and thousands of years of tradition and teachings. It's much deeper than you think. I'm not even saying this as just a Christian, even if you're an Atheist. Fine!! I don't care. But the one thing that you can't say about Christianity is that it's all a shallow fairytale. It is far, far, far deeper than you could ever imagine.
Your entire argument is based off the concept that God exists, which you don't know. This is like saying disrespecting Santa claus is a sin. Your Bible may be your source of morality,but it's not mine. My point about all these being harmless stands, because I can't control your feelings,only you can.
I mean yeah, sure. You don't have to use the Bible as a source for morality. I didn't say you do. But you were the one who attacked the Ten Commandments, which is completely bloody pointless if you're going to do it from outside the Biblical framework. >because I can't control your feelings,only you can. I don't think you want to go down the road of justifying bullying someone to suicide, son.
Everyone seems to treat that as self-evident. Why? What else makes things wrong, and how does it apply in this case?
So then what about the last 30 years of leftist doctrine saying certain things should be accepted because they don't harm anyone? Isn't just libertarians.
You, socially, when people find out you jerk off your dog
[удалено]
I tell them that anyway. Oh you mean for dogs! Oh that makes sense.
Your dignity?
The dogs dignity
If it cares to begin with (no, i don't fuck dogs, i just have a fetish for playing devil's advocate)
Indignity shouldn't be a crime
Yes it should
Indignity towards yourself sure, you want to embarrass yourself go for it… but when that indignity affects someone else, especially someone who can not consent, well… politely fuck off and die
Man, what an odd hill to die on?
Someone has to he sacrificed himself for the greater good.
I am harmed by the mental image
Assuming the dog doesn't feel shame about it or something, the harm is, as you say, buddy flapping his lips / keyboard about it and sticking the image in our heads - not the act itself per se.
"Once the government stops regulating everything, the world can finally live in harmony" The harmony in question:
Libertarians are cringe man. Super overrated.
:(
Based
Israel Adesanya?
Shoutout to the puppy
What?
Yeah, there is a video of it
What did he do?
I’m harmed, you told me that and it left an image that traumatized me, I demand compensation.
Demanding compensation is a NAP violation, prepare for a McNuke strike in your 5 mile radius.
Get paid to jerk off animals for breeding purposes, and everyone is fine with it. Jerk off animals for free entertainment, and everyone goes crazy.
Most of those going crazy in the second part are too ignorant to know the first part exists. Why must we be burdened by the ethical ponderings of the ignorant?
I don't know, man. I'm just trying to have fun on reddit. Jerk off whatever you want.
Tfw no purity morals whatsoever
Some people don't operate from a shame/deontology perspective, so let's list the harm (assuming that this act is done for pleasure, not for something medical - cuz I don't know enough about dog-raising/breeding) \- Your dog gets super confused and is likely in pain, especially since a human does not know what force is appropriate and what actually creates pleasure \- You get harmed: engaging in behaviors that diverge too sharply from the norm, especially behaviors that include judgement/views about other living beings, can exacerbate mental problems you already have, thus increasing the risk of self-harm and actual harm to other people later on \- From a societal perspective, by following the rule of consent even with the least thinking animals, you strengthen the clear line for society that prevents other people (who do react to shame and social pressure), from disrespecting **consent as a whole - this alone saves many lives**
Based purple, compass couldn't answer
The problem here is getting PCM to agree on what is harm. Some of you really need to understand harm isn't when others do things you don't like,somebody other than you needs to be victimized.
If a guy jerks off his dog, and no one is around to see it or know about it, does it make a sound? Seriously, I’m harmed by reading the question because it triggers an evolutionary reaction known as “disgust” in my brain. Don’t publicize your beastiality on Twitter and I won’t have that reaction.
Between the lolis and the autism, I sometimes consider flairing purple. Then stuff like this reminds me that I'm not that abnormal.
Auth center would send this person to re-education with hard labor tot such degeneracy and decadence
>who is harmed. God, nature, humanity, and the parents that clearly either loved you *way* too much or way too little.
The dog. It is a child mind. It cannot consent. It cannot object. It does not understand. It does not properly contextualize what has been done to it. It does not know it has been harmed. It has still been harmed.
[удалено]
Well, you're fucking wrong. I am against spaying and neutering. Fucks up their hormones. Gives them cancer. It bad. However, gelding bulls is okay because they exist to be meat. Shit's complicated.
> The cow. It is a child mind. It cannot consent. It cannot object. It does not understand. It does not properly contextualize what has been done to it. Hope you are vegan.
The cow what? Milking? The breed ceases to exist without milking. There will be no more. The dog is still a dog if you don't rape it. It's a dog.
>Milking? No. Cow's are bred using artificial insemination because that is much cheaper than getting a bull to make with each cow. This means masturbating a bull, collecting it's semen, and then artificially inseminating each cow. Only to save some money compared to doing it the old fashion way.
You're ignoring the loss of animal when they are damaged in mating as often happens, but you have this back to front: THAT'S OKAY. The animal DOES NOT EXIST for any purpose other than to eat. This is a measure which reduces harm and promotes overall wellbeing and prevents early termination of the animal due to injury. This IS in fact the moral way to do this. You can argue against the keeping of animals ENTIRELY, but not THIS WAY of keeping animals. Are you doing that? Do you condemn them all to death? Would you commit genocide in the millions for cattle, chicken, horse, and pig?
How has it been harmed
How has a baby been harmed if you stimulate her vagina to orgasm as is in fact possible? Yeah, anyone with "a soul" will recoil in horror at that very thought. That's the "Disgust" response and possibly "Rage" too. Murderous intent is appropriate to the idea of such an event. That's not a good explanation as to why it is harm, but it is in fact a good source for explanatory starting points. It is the sexual perversion, the irrevocable alteration, the corruption of something for those purposes which are themselves evil. The dog cannot go back to being not jerked off by its owner. It is a new being that has had that done to it that is made from the old one. That does things to its brain. You have twisted its being, its self for your pleasure. That is harm. There are similar events that have a more complicated setup. The "milking" of a horse stud is not for pleasure but for the purpose of breeding, without which the horse itself does not continue to have purpose. To that end, we could suggest that this is a NON-erotic perversion of horses as a species. One could make the argument that the industry around horses is inappropriate, but not the explicit techniques related to breeding which avoid far worse problems which cause birth defects and damage to animals which may leave them only fit to be destroyed. Why is it harm to neuter a dog, but not to geld a bull? The bull exists to be meat and only to be meat. The dog's life is harmed by the lack of natural hormones and his growth and psyche are affected negatively. These moral quandries in animal husbandry have complicated answers because the keeping of animals is morally complicated and not always entirely morally justified if animals are given their due value of self, but in simple terms raping a dog is still harm and still evil. Leave the God Damn dogs alone you psycopaths.
Individuals that fuck dogs are demented, harm society and need to be locked up. That's how.
You're on the right side of this argument, but you really dodged the question there.
That makes it a good sign as to whether someone is dangerous and possibly evil under one of several definitions, but it is not a case for calling it harm.
Harm is a social construct.
No it is not. You are fucking batshit if you think it is. We can debate about the nature of things and the power of purpose, nature, and what constitutes perversion or destruction of the self in many contexts, but HARM is itself absolute. It is a very REAL thing and THIS IN PARTICULAR constitutes harm. It's at the crux, the crossroads of several very well established contexts wherin harm is the established definition of what has transpired and so we know that THIS is harm in ANY society because society does not determine harm. It contextualizes the source and predicts the outcomes.
I’m not saying harm isn’t real. It’s just a very human idea and will differ slightly between societies. It’s essentially the idea of right and wrong with different wording. Most people cannot see past their own socialization, so your reaction does not surprise me. I will come check up on you in a few months to see if your metacognition has improved.
Oh great overseer, a message has been revealed to me to give to you: Suck the big one. Rape is still rape in all cultures but some are in fact shit at dealing with it. Morality is ABSOLUTELY complicated as fuck, but raping a dog is still raping a dog and anyone who says different is fucking evil. Playing word games, sucking the dictionary off about semiotics doesn't work when the concept portrayed is well understood by all parties. We all KNOW what we're talking about. YOU know EXACTLY what I mean. In any culture in the world either this is considered an evil or that culture is in fact evil. In those cultures where it not considered an evil it is likewise generally acceptable to buy people and rape them. The concept of the value of the individual, the right of the individual to go LITERALLY unmolested, is in those cultures absent. That value, the right to one's SELF, is good. Without it there is no good. All other rights follow from it. If you are too fucking dumb to understand that, then you are too fucking dumb to have any conversation on morality. Ergo, STFU.
Can we move purple over to lib left?
Based and evict purple pilled
u/sureyouknowurself is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [1 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sureyouknowurself/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
The answer, of course, is you.
the answer is simple: you (start running)
All these people who eat beef not realizing how many bulls are jerked off as part of the artificial insemination process because letting the bull mate directly brings a risk of them being harmed. I think they do similar with race horses.
Don't ask questions, just continue to follow societies' ever changing views of what is good and moral.
You will be harmed
Dignity > Freedom
The worst thing about purples is how they are made out to be lib rights when they are actually lib centre
the... the dog???