NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

[Gnidrologist]

All the asshats, who think that their personal moral or philosophical point of view is more ''valid'' than the other deserves to be raped by smelly, dolphin sperm propelled zombie goatse monster from Mars.

And what ''deviations that can be dangerous to our society'' are you on about? Zoophilia is older than holy bible. People were all kinds of sexual perverts since the beginning of time. It's only that now we have media full of that shit, but that doesn't mean it's somethig new. Sems that some of you think that lots of things are starting to happen now just because you got to know it from teh internets. Society and human beings can not deviate any further, they've always been sick fucks and you can't do a shit about that, so let's not waist time on proving to someone whom and how he should fuck.

 

[sheek]

You're the only sick fuck we can't do a shit about (laws against murder and such). As for what you think about society nobody gives a fuck because society doesn't want you and is better off without you. So shut up.

 

[Data4]

All the asshats, who think that their personal moral or philosophical point of view is more ''valid'' than the other deserves to be raped by smelly, dolphin sperm propelled zombie goatse monster from Mars.

And what ''deviations that can be dangerous to our society'' are you on about? Zoophilia is older than holy bible. People were all kinds of sexual perverts since the beginning of time. It's only that now we have media full of that shit, but that doesn't mean it's somethig new. Sems that some of you think that lots of things are starting to happen now just because you got to know it from teh internets. Society and human beings can not deviate any further, they've always been sick fucks and you can't do a shit about that, so let's not waist time on proving to someone whom and how he should fuck.

*golf clap* Nice. I'm sure you got an A in your Modern Sexuality class. Length of time in existence does not legitimize a behavior. With the possible exception of some obscure sheepfucking pack of undiscovered naked natives somewhere, I'll bet good money that the idea of interspecies copulation is repulsive to all but the repulsive.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about slobbering on a horse cock?

-D4

 

[Vipera]

I've shown my Psychology and Law teachers this debate (I'm in school at the moment) and they both agree that morality as it applies to subjects such as deviant but harmless sexual behavior are relative, not objective. I think objectivism in an individual is just an inability to accept that anyone can have morals that differ from their own relative morality without being "freaks" or "harmful to society."

Data, if the "Deviant Sexuality" thread I created about a month ago on The Community were still around (it was deleted when one of the subforums was closed), I would link you to it. Most everyone said that, while the idea of having sex with anything non-human was not something they would ever do, they didn't have any problems with other people doing it so long as the animal wasn't harmed.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

I've shown my Psychology and Law teachers this debate (I'm in school at the moment) and they both agree that morality as it applies to subjects such as deviant but harmless sexual behavior are relative, not objective.

And what did they have to say about your... ah... views on dolphins?

 

[Chinese Jetpilot]

I've shown a dolphin this thread, and upon doing so she proceeded to blast my balls with sonar.

It was all so very...stimulating.

 

[sheek]

I've shown my Psychology and Law teachers this debate (I'm in school at the moment) and they both agree that morality as it applies to subjects such as deviant but harmless sexual behavior are relative, not objective. I think objectivism in an individual is just an inability to accept that anyone can have morals that differ from their own relative morality without being "freaks" or "harmful to society."

And we care what some deviant psychology professors tell you, why? I understand you're just a kid and must think you're oh-so smart but you're not. Fuck em and fuck you for letting yourself get brainwashed so easily. Think for yourself and maybe, one day, you'll understand.

 

[Gnidrologist]

You're the only sick fuck we can't do a shit about (laws against murder and such). As for what you think about society nobody gives a fuck because society doesn't want you and is better off without you. So shut up.

And what's there to do with me? I thought I pointed out that the whole zoophilia thing disgusts me. Learn to read, moron. The point of my post was that ethics and morality is always relative and what's fine and dandy with one society is a worst crime in another. And also you missed that I'm categorically against violence and harming other living creature unless it's act of self defence (applies to whole society also).
And don't speak on behalf of society and It doesn't want you either.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about slobbering on a horse cock?

-D4

And how do you? I think it's sick, however, I don't see anything amoral in it. If you and horse both enjoy it, nobody but the ones involved should care.

And what exactly are you afraid? That somewhere in future society will decide that it's ok to rape children, torture animals and have sex with a corpse? How are those acts in any way relevant to what we're talking about, besides being of sexual nature?

 

[kingcomrade]

I don't see anything amoral in it.

I think you mean "immoral." Amoral means having no moral value, positive or negative. Normally there's no need to be so picky, but in this case it can confuse people...

 

[Gnidrologist]

Yes, that's what I ment. In my language immoral is spelled amoral so I misspelled.

 

[Nutcracker]

The problem with moral relativism is that it lacks legitimacy. If anyone is allowed to dissent and say "that may be your view, but in my opinion X is not wrong", then how can any laws or conventions carry any authority? You draw the line at "things that harm other people", but what makes them objectively wrong but everything else up for debate? A criminal who believes in the "law of the jungle" for example (something that lies buried deep in every human brain)...he may cheat, steal, lie and kill. By condemning him you are still enforcing your own "objective" view of what is right and wrong, the only difference being where you draw the line. And that is in my opinion a fairly arbitrary distinction, one that prevents you from taking the "moral high ground", so to speak.

Unless you favour some sort of complete bestial anarchy, the difference in practice between a moral relativist and an" objectivist" is purely one of small degree. Clearly you believe law and behavioural norms are necessary for the functioning of society, you just dont take it quite as far. When all's said and done this is merely an attempt to defend your own particular perversion from attack.

 

[Gnidrologist]

I'm not completely relativistic, I have my own views of what is right and what is wrong, and unsurprisingly, most of them are in accordance with most common norms of behaviour in most civilized societies. I think that killing, robbing other people is bad and so on. These norms makes sense, because they help society to function well and enhances the comfort of most people.
However, I can't find anything wrong with mutually approved intercourse no matter how ''freaky'' it may seem.
It's like eating shit, that surely seems gross and pervers, but it doesn't hurt anyone, does it? And nobody does care about it, because there's no point.

Believe it or not, but i'm completely boring and traditional in my sexual tastes, but I hate retarded arguments, which is why I care to participate in this debate. If I'm saying that slaughtering jews in gas chambers isn't ok, does it make me a jew myself? Such arguments are childish.

 

[Vipera]

I've shown my Psychology and Law teachers this debate (I'm in school at the moment) and they both agree that morality as it applies to subjects such as deviant but harmless sexual behavior are relative, not objective.

And what did they have to say about your... ah... views on dolphins?

One of his former students is doing a paper about human sexuality at UF and he wondered if I would be willing to talk with her.

I've shown my Psychology and Law teachers this debate (I'm in school at the moment) and they both agree that morality as it applies to subjects such as deviant but harmless sexual behavior are relative, not objective. I think objectivism in an individual is just an inability to accept that anyone can have morals that differ from their own relative morality without being "freaks" or "harmful to society."

And we care what some deviant psychology professors tell you, why?

I found it interesting, but I never said everyone would care.

I understand you're just a kid and must think you're oh-so smart but you're not.

Yes, it's true, there are people with a higher intellectual capacity in certain areas than me; not many, but enough.

Fuck em and fuck you for letting yourself get brainwashed so easily. Think for yourself and maybe, one day, you'll understand.

I don't let other people dictate how I should think, and I apologize for not making it obvious enough. Perhaps another story detailing interspecies sex would help?

 

[Jasede]

Is she a dolphin?

@Offtopic:

I don't care who of you bangs who or what as long as I don't have to see it and as long as you aren't claiming it's "perfectly normal". You're a zoophile? Fine. I don't care. Does it matter? No. It's a sick perversion. Like being furry. Or being "straight" and liking to be taken with a strap-on by your wife. Or being into scat, watersports, knives, or any of the other fetishes there are out there. Everything that isn't your deviancy is bound to disgust others, and that's normal. Disgust is a helpful, healthy emotion. As long as you don't make me see it or claim that it is not deviant I could care less.

That said, you're a sick dolphinfucker. Now let me continue my yiff-RP.

 

[Vipera]

Is she a dolphin?

@Offtopic:

I don't care who of you bangs who or what as long as I don't have to see it and as long as you aren't claiming it's "perfectly normal". You're a zoophile? Fine. I don't care. Does it matter? No. It's a sick perversion. Like being furry. Or being "straight" and liking to be taken with a strap-on by your wife. Or being into scat, watersports, knives, or any of the other fetishes there are out there. Everything that isn't your deviancy is bound to disgust others, and that's normal. Disgust is a helpful, healthy emotion. As long as you don't make me see it or claim that it is not deviant I could care less.

That said, you're a sick dolphinfucker. Now let me continue my yiff-RP.

Is that what you guys are going on about? You think I believe it to be normal?

 

[SlavemasterT]

Ok, I'm calling bullshit. There's no way in hell you'd just admit to being such a degenerate pervert to some teacher at school, unless maybe they're molesting you (I mean, "helping you to explore your sexuality in a mutually acceptable but entirely illegal way'). I've known plenty of fucktards in my life, and maybe I'm being charitable, but I don't think that even you're that stupid.

 

[Jasede]

Sure, happens all the time.
"Mister Stottlemeyer, I have a secret I need to get off my chest... I... I don't know where to begin but, but... *sighs* All right, I will just say it plainly: I wanna mate with a dolphin. Please... please be tolerant..."

Tolerance is WAY overrated.

 

[Texas Red]

I think we all should get together and give Viperia a good, brutal humping so he wont think of sex, doplhin or normal, ever again. That is how you treat zoophilia.

 

[Vipera]

The problem with moral relativism is that it lacks legitimacy. If anyone is allowed to dissent and say "that may be your view, but in my opinion X is not wrong", then how can any laws or conventions carry any authority? You draw the line at "things that harm other people", but what makes them objectively wrong but everything else up for debate? A criminal who believes in the "law of the jungle" for example (something that lies buried deep in every human brain)...he may cheat, steal, lie and kill. By condemning him you are still enforcing your own "objective" view of what is right and wrong, the only difference being where you draw the line. And that is in my opinion a fairly arbitrary distinction, one that prevents you from taking the "moral high ground", so to speak.

Unless you favour some sort of complete bestial anarchy, the difference in practice between a moral relativist and an" objectivist" is purely one of small degree. Clearly you believe law and behavioural norms are necessary for the functioning of society, you just dont take it quite as far. When all's said and done this is merely an attempt to defend your own particular perversion from attack.

For that to apply I would need to be an extreme relativist, which I'm not. And the same holds true for objectivism: who decides what is or is not morally acceptable? Anyone who made such decisions would be subject to their own relative morality, thus making objectivism nothing more than forcing one person's morality on everyone else.

No, it's an attempt to defend myself from attack. Feel free to discuss sexual perversions, I won't interfere. But do you really expect that I let people judge me without defending myself?

 

[Vipera]

Ok, I'm calling bullshit. There's no way in hell you'd just admit to being such a degenerate pervert to some teacher at school, unless maybe they're molesting you (I mean, "helping you to explore your sexuality in a mutually acceptable but entirely illegal way'). I've known plenty of fucktards in my life, and maybe I'm being charitable, but I don't think that even you're that stupid.

Maybe you just live in the wrong part of Florida?

And no, it isn't bullshit. I've always been very open with my thoughts and feelings.

 

[Jasede]

What the fuck is there to defend? You're a perverted deviant. The hell? What is there to defend against? Explain. Don't rap about ethics or morality. You know full well that such things are decided by the context of the society you're in and are by no means absolute. There's nothing you need to defend. You're a pervert, end of story. Stop debating and move on.

 

[Vipera]

What the fuck is there to defend? You're a perverted deviant. The hell? What is there to defend against? Explain. Don't rap about ethics or morality. You know full well that such things are decided by the context of the society you're in and are by no means absolute. There's nothing you need to defend. You're a pervert, end of story. Stop debating and move on.

I believe I agreed with KB when she said I was a sick motherfucker a few pages back... Anyway, I initially responded to correct some misconceptions about sexual orientation; not try to pass myself off as a normal person who wants to fuck outside his species. I don't care if you say I'm a pervert, because I am, but I'm not going to leave incorrect speculation about my character unchallenged.

 

[Jasede]

I challenge your character to a duel of speculation! No wait. I don't. This is a boring thread. Just make a new RPG discussion or something so the Codex has something to chew on... aww, heck, I think I'll just post a thread where we discuss character creation... don't think we had such a thread in a while.

 

[MacBone]

I thought this was amusing: http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/0722/bestiality_ctv.html

State Sen. Pam Roach wants Washington residents to stop horsing around with their stallions — and other domesticated animals.

The proposed legislation stems from an investigation into an Enumclaw, Wash., farm, where a 45-year-old man died on July 2 from internal bleeding due to a perforated colon resulting from having sex with a horse.

"While the horse won out in this instance, there are cases where smaller animals are used for these particular acts and its extremely painful for them," Roach said. "The whole realm of bestiality is cruel to the animal because it is unnatural."

"It's cruel. That's my stance and that's PETA's stance," Mersereau said. "I'll change my tune when Mr. Ed tells me he likes being raped in his stall by some pervert on a stepstool."

How's that translation of dolphin whistles coming along, Vipera?

And, of course, no article on bestiality would be complete without mentioning Florida.

Last week, prosecutors in Tallahassee, Fla., dropped animal cruelty charges against a blind man who was accused of having sex with his guide dog. Florida, like Washington, doesn't have a bestiality statute.

"Legislators didn't want to be laughed at on the Senate floor. But it's not a laughing matter. Animals do die from this deviant behavior," Van Kavage said. "I show them news headlines and ask, 'Is this what you want your state to be known for?'"

I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[Vipera]

Dude, that first article is over a year old. And who the fuck cares what People for the Erotic Treatment of Animals spokespeople think anyway?