/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13113240]

Some good books on atheist & vegan morality?

[Anonymous No.13113245]

>>13113240

[Anonymous No.13113249]

ethics by spinoza

[Anonymous No.13113253]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRZbch9NmQQ

Refute him I dare you

[Anonymous No.13113256]

>>13113240
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
>If killing babies is no different from abortion does that follow that abortion is no different from killing babies?
>B I G O T
A conversation I had

[Anonymous No.13113263]

Singer is just shit posting, he is Australian. Retard if you fall for the bait.

[Anonymous No.13113265]

>>13113240
He is not wrong though, if it is not harmful, the only way to deny and say that it is wrong is to appeal to some spooky moral principles and use buzzwords like "degenerate"

[Anonymous No.13113269]

>>13113265
imagine being this much of a bugman
you're objectively wrong

[Anonymous No.13113272]

>>13113256
an a national socialist, I am against killing healthy white babies, but I fully support killing retarded or mixed race children. Catholic's knee jerk opposition to killing babies is merely a sign of moral weakness.

[Anonymous No.13113296]

>>13113269
argue how then, you little mongoloid

[Anonymous No.13113319]

>>13113272
>as a retard I support mutually esclusive things
ftfy

[Anonymous No.13113349]

>>13113245
Sure thing, boomer.

[Anonymous No.13113355]

>>13113240

[Anonymous No.13113356]

>>13113265
He's wrong because he's a weakling who bases his ethics off what women derive pleasure from. He should be tarred and feathered.

[Anonymous No.13113373]

>>13113265
Why should we care about what's harmful then? Don't use spooky buzzwords like "suffering" and "human rights"

[Anonymous No.13113392]

>>13113356
it is not about women, or their pleasure, it is about sex with animals in general
>>13113373
i agree

[Anonymous No.13113440]

>>13113392
>it is not about women, or their pleasure,
It is deliberately framed as "such and such THOTS said they liked it so It's ok"
That's the end all be all of ethical debate in the west, late 2010s.

[Anonymous No.13113449]

>>13113319
how is that mutually exclusive? catholics are cucks who go against nature by insisting in keeping worthless people alive

[Anonymous No.13113458]

>>13113440
It is just an illustration, not the core of argumentation.

[Anonymous No.13113469]

>>13113240
But that’s how we got AIDS

[Anonymous No.13113484]

>>13113449
You don't know who was worthless and who untill milions of years later.
>I'm a primate But I have shorter toes and some difficulty hanging in trees
>lol as a national socialist primate they should have aborted you lololol
>a few hundred of thousands years later...

On the ethic level IDGAF If someone is worthless. He still has rights Since he was conceived because that's the only non arbitrary moment to estabilish human nature and accepting ambiguities here is just an invitation to the elites to start murdering everyone who disagrees with them. Also they aren't worthless to God anyway.

See? THIS is being coherent.
"lol whites can't be aborted But jumbalumbas can" is just a declaration of strenght, intellectually dishonest, from the kind of people who have Lost all their wars.

[Anonymous No.13113505]

>>13113392
It absolutely is about pleasure. There is no other grounding for the indulgence in these acts aside from pleasure. To deny that is to contradict yourself and inherently refute Singer's ethics.

The claim: [ it is about sex with animals in general ] is vague and undefined, and fails to establish any impetus behind the ethical framework that you propose.

[Anonymous No.13113511]

>>13113505
I didn't make myself clear, yes it is about pleasure, I just said it is not about particular (women's) pleasure.

[Anonymous No.13113523]

>>13113256
based

[Anonymous No.13113527]

>>13113523

[Anonymous No.13113531]

>>13113240
this is literally just the descartes pill and honestly, i think he's only talking about women fucking dogs from a physical standpoint, i doubt you can get rabies from fucking a retriever. from a psychological point of view something's obviously wrong, but then again 99% are already mentally ill and it's completely socially acceptable for them to be.

[Anonymous No.13113543]

>>13113531
what is this mysterious "psychological point of view" from which it is "obviously" wrong?

[Anonymous No.13113552]

>>13113531
I like to watch my wife get fucked by the dog, dude's like a mindless fucking machine, sometimes i slather my dick in peanut butter so the dog can fellate me. I've vveen trying to teach the little guy to sodomize me but I haven't been successful yet. We are an outwardsly normal couple with three beautiful children and a nice house. what we do in the privacy of our rooms is of no concern to you.

[Anonymous No.13113556]

>>13113543
It reduces you to the level of animal. At least I imagine so, if I imagine fucking a dog.

[Anonymous No.13113567]

>>13113556
don't knock something you haven't tried yet. the point of being alive is having all sorts of different experiences. it's immoral, i may get punished in an afterlife i can't prove exists, dude shut up, if my wife likes it and the dog likes it and i like watching them, then nobody is being harmed and nothing wrong is being done

[Anonymous No.13113569]

>>13113253
Animals cannot consent

Wow, that was easy

[Anonymous No.13113580]

>>13113567
>if my wife likes it and the dog likes it and i like watching them, then nobody is being harmed
I disagree. Though the desire itself harms you all, even if you weren't embodying it.
> and nothing wrong is being done
Ugliness is evil.

[Anonymous No.13113581]

>>13113567
Hey man, you do you man. If you like it, thats all that matter

[Anonymous No.13113699]

>>13113569
> Animals consent matters
> Unless when it comes to everything except for sex
> a dog licking peanut butter of a pussy isn't consent because it didn't verbally say yes
> even though humans don't need to verbally say yes to count as consent, their actions are often enough

[Anonymous No.13113719]

>>13113484
>he was conceived because that's the only non arbitrary moment to estabilish human nature
Retard

[Anonymous No.13113726]

>>13113569
That's why they're property.

[Anonymous No.13113728]

>>13113580
How desire harms them? Are you a fucking nun from local monastery?

[Anonymous No.13113781]

>>13113265
This whole Stirnerite nonsense about morality being a spook is fine and good and all except for the fact that it's utterly non-functional and will get you killed by basically every society that has ever lived. "Spooky moral principles" are a consequence of our evolution, we are imperfect creatures that developed an intuition for what was good for the survival of the group and what was bad for the survival of the group and this later became our "morality". If you want to be killed, go right against that morality while claiming it's a spook, see if I care.

Sure one could argue that the morality is easily manipulated, but the effective argument against that is whether a particular moral idea is better or worse for long term flourishing of a particular group of people in comparison to some alternative. I would say there is very little benefit that is gained from allowing people to fuck animals, and the risk of having people who like to fuck animals in your society is fairly large.

[Anonymous No.13113785]

>>13113728
The desire to filthy yourself, to associate yourself with ugliness - it harms you. It changes you. What you were before that desire got power in you, why those desires are in you to begin with (implied damage, likely caused by porn). When your habits reduce your standards, they reduce you.

[Anonymous No.13113797]

>>13113781
dude, I fuck dogs (and engage in still more depraved and blasphemous activities I wont bother to describe) precisely because I like feeling like a based superhuman entity who is above society, morality, humanity and even god himself. morality is for weak people anyways, a means of keeping the stupid in line and ensure don't make much of a mess, superior individuals like myself relish in their immorality

[Anonymous No.13113807]

>>13113392
But he states "I know women who find it pleasurable" as an argument in favour. He's a thirsty cuck who cannot possibly be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.13113812]

>>13113797
>dude, I do heroin and expose myself to diseases and filth precisely because it makes me feel like a based superhuman entity who is above society morality and God himself. Lying in piles of garbage and refuse makes me feel smarter than the stupid sheeple who keep themselves clean and care what others who value them think about them.

Yes, you are the smarter one for rolling around in your own shit and repulsing everyone with a healthy instinct towards survival. Good luck with that one friend.

[Anonymous No.13113874]

>>13113265
Harm based morality is retard tier

[Anonymous No.13113876]

>>13113569
>Animals cannot consent
Is that the only reason you think sex with animals is bad? Would you suddenly accept bestiality if somebody could convince you that the dog wants it? Don't you just have a natural revulsion for that kind of thing that defies all argumentation? Isn't that a good enough reason to oppose it?

[Anonymous No.13113922]

>>13113876
I have natural tevulsion to niggers, that doesn't mean racism is okay.

[Anonymous No.13113926]

>>13113922
Oh, but it does.

[Anonymous No.13114120]

>>13113552
I hope this is a satire

[Anonymous No.13114136]

>>13113922
>>13113926
That does mean you weigh 400lbs

[Anonymous No.13114298]

>>13113728
Repeat patterns.

[Anonymous No.13114390]

>>13113265
There is no way to truly know beforehand whether the intercourse will harm the child in any psychological way.

[Anonymous No.13114671]

>>13113527
this one made me laugh

[Anonymous No.13114695]

>>13113926
argument from nature is a fallacy

[Anonymous No.13114706]

>>13113876
no it isn't

[Anonymous No.13114707]

>>13113874
What should morality be based on?

[Anonymous No.13114709]

start with the Minoans

[Anonymous No.13114711]

>>13113245
unironically the satanic bible compliments perfectly what liberals and atheists think it's moral. It's main rule is :do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" which is basically the main argument for allowing all sorts of degeneracy today.

[Anonymous No.13114731]

>>13113272
>sign of moral weakness.
Making exceptions for clearly morally evil things is
actual moral weakness.

[Anonymous No.13114734]

>>13113569
>animals cannot consent
Is all animal sex immoral?

[Anonymous No.13114757]

>>13113569
what if i let my dog fuck my ass? i'm not forcing him, i'm letting him

[Anonymous No.13114766]

>>13113569
They can consent to belly rubs and walks, right? They love that shit.

[Anonymous No.13114772]

>>13113272
dumb nazi

[Anonymous No.13114774]

>>13114757
good question actually

[Anonymous No.13114780]

>>13113240
>Peter Singer
>Morality
Pick ine

[Anonymous No.13114781]

>>13113511
Imbecile.

[Anonymous No.13114782]

>>13114781
HIHIHIHIHI

[Anonymous No.13114796]

>>13113240
Singer is a worse meme than Peterson, t.b.h.

[Anonymous No.13114874]

>>13114757
It's still wrong.

[Anonymous No.13114897]

Gonna fall for the obvious bait here is the definition of leftist just "anything I don't like"? The /pol/ mentality is literally just third-hand fox news opinions. You have the intellectual rigor of an opiate-addicted grandma who watches tv all day.

[Anonymous No.13114915]

>>13113240
What does this have to do with veganism?

[Anonymous No.13114954]

Has anyone ever made a good argument for why bestiality is supposed to be immoral?
>it's yucky/God said so/it can make you sick
the same things can be said about gay sex, but that doesn't make it inherently immoral
>muh consent
probably the strongest argument, but it only works if you fully accept animal rights as a concept. Most people don't and can reject it out of hand
is there anything else?

[Anonymous No.13114963]

>>13114954
Theres no way to fully know if the animal consent it, it literally a violation or rape. As feminist I dont suppor rape.

[Anonymous No.13114976]

>>13114963
Do you eat meat?

[Anonymous No.13115021]

>>13114915
have you seen actual vegans, specially the ones that work as """rescues"""? it's all a low-key animal sexual thing

[Anonymous No.13115097]

>>13115021
Can confirm. Knew this girl back in college who was a militant vegan and had been getting KNOTTED by her rottweiler for years until her parents found out.

[Anonymous No.13115113]

>degenerates ITT trying to define what's moral or not
"Morality" became a function of pride.

[Anonymous No.13115123]

>>13115113
No, it became a secret.

[Anonymous No.13115138]

>>13113272
>an a national socialist
literally anything you say is redundant

[Anonymous No.13115168]

>>13115123
More like a fetish

[Anonymous No.13115172]

>>13113876
>Is that the only reason you think sex with animals is bad?
No, but its the most logical one, and therefore what i'd use in an argument

[Anonymous No.13115232]

>>13113699
Just focus on the act instead of the actors - sex requires two consenting parties, it it doesn't, it's going to be immoral and/or illegal.

>a dog licking peanut butter of a pussy isn't consent because it didn't verbally say yes
As the party capable of reasoning, you're responsible for setting boundaries. The same would apply if a curious little girl started trying to be sexually intimate with an adult.

in essence, the "verbal contract" isn't as important as the ability of both parties to have high level reasoning; because if this is the case, then you're on equal footing

[Anonymous No.13115233]

>>13114976
oh no no no

[Anonymous No.13115245]

>beastiality is the headline
>pedophilia is in the slugline

hmmm

[Anonymous No.13115255]

>>13113569
Consent is a meme and doesn't justify anything in itself. The "can't consent" assertion is back peddling because the argument falls apart.

[Anonymous No.13115265]

>>13115255
Elaborate. Calling something a meme isn't sufficient.

[Anonymous No.13115289]

Can you actually get any STDs or diseases from fucking a cat/dog?

seems better than hiring an escort desu

[Anonymous No.13115304]

>>13113263
>(((Singer)))
>Australian

[Anonymous No.13115377]

>>13115232
Focusing on the act instead of the actors leads to an absurd morality: If I cleave someone's leg with an axe, I'm going to jail. Should the same happen when I do it to a tree trunk?
If I slit someone's throat, exsanguinate them and serve them to my family I'm a psychotic cannibal murderer, if I do the same to a deer, a great hunter and father.
>sex requires two consenting parties
That's just obviously wrong, even for humans

[Anonymous No.13115407]

>all these people arguing that fucking animals is OK
ah, I see, I am just a brainlet for not wanting to fuck dogs

[Anonymous No.13115450]

>>13115021
I'm vegan and find bestiality revolting. Carnism and bestiality both reduce animals to objects to be used for our pleasure. Raping your dog is as anti-vegan as killing and eating them.

[Anonymous No.13115468]

>>13114954
>The same thing could be said about gay sex

Yes, which is why I like the majority of the world view male homosexuality with such disgust. It's really only the west that tolerates male homosexual behavior in any serious way, let alone actually accepting it as a lifestyle replacement for heterosexual monogamy.

[Anonymous No.13115495]

>>13113797
lmao

[Anonymous No.13115499]

>>13114954
Because it supposes animals are equal to humans. If that was the case certain other laws can be refuted with the same argument leading to an endless post-modern hedonistic state, which is not good. It's like the child that is home alone, so he eats all the candy.

[Anonymous No.13115517]

>>13113797
kek, this is what the french actually believe

[Anonymous No.13115525]

>start a thread about a work of literature
>10 replies and vanishes off the back page

>start a thread about yootoobers or dog-fuckers
>0ver 9000 replies!!!!

/r/books is objectively better than post2016/lit/

[Anonymous No.13115545]

>>13115525
go be utilitarian somewhere else

[Anonymous No.13115551]

>>13113569
What about dolphins? Those fucks want to rape you without any compulsion.

What's the next step in your argumentation?

[Anonymous No.13115559]

>>13115499
>Because it supposes animals are equal to humans
It really doesn't, it supposes that they are inferior. If animals were equal to humans their consent would matter

[Anonymous No.13115577]

Post yfw you walk into an argument on the morality of fucking dogs

[Anonymous No.13115626]

Show me a single dog fucker who doesn’t live a life that can easily be defined as hell

[Anonymous No.13115675]

>>13113240
I don't see what's wrong with fucking dogs. Most people on here are bound to be viscerally opposed to it but what can you expect from a board of reactionaries?
Unless the dog is visibly resistant then I see nothing wrong with it. In fact I've touched my dog in sexual ways before. I want to try the peanut butter thing eventually but I am afraid she will bite my dick.

[Anonymous No.13116141]

>>13115407
man, this board sure gets weird from time to time.

[Anonymous No.13116518]

>>13113797
based and nietzsche-pilled. I can feel all anglos seething and trying to resentfully throw arguments like "b-but years of evolution!" "animals can't consent!" "b-but whats better for the group".

[Anonymous No.13116576]

>>13113719
Not him but apart from that you only have birth, which must people won't even mention, as it is almost impossible to imagine killing a live that could even survive outside the womb.

[Anonymous No.13116588]

There is literally nothing wrong with pedophilia or bestiality
>inb4 slave moralists starts spooking up

[Anonymous No.13116620]

>>13116576
Before the first trimester and the formation of the CNS is the most reasonable stage of fetal development to drawn the line.

[Anonymous No.13116663]

>>13116620
This is so fucking bizarre to me. The child still doesn't 'think' any more than a cow does (in fact it's less sentient than a cow).
I'm not arguing for child murder here, I just don't see how this arbitrary point matters.
Creation of life is the only moment that matters to me.

[Anonymous No.13116674]

>>13116663
I legitimately think I should be allowed to eat babies until they prove they're smarter than pigs. If a pig was human-level intelligence it would be immoral to eat it. Species just happens to be the determining factor in value-giving intelligence, it's not value in itself.

[Anonymous No.13116804]

>when you're okay with enslaving entire species for countless generations just to make yourself happy but you draw the line at fucking them

[Anonymous No.13116949]

>>13116674


fully grown pigs are more sentient than babies. they can at least walk. babies can't walk

[Anonymous No.13116952]

Thanks OP. Glad I'm Christian and don't have these stupid nihilistic moral problems anymore.

[Anonymous No.13116957]

>>13116949
I meant babies should be eatable until they develop pig tier intelligence.

[Anonymous No.13116971]

>>13113240
I think.... that I wanna fuck that dog!

[Anonymous No.13117015]

>>13113569
Youve never had a cat in heat they try to fuck literally everything. I cant count how many times ive had horny cat pussy 'presented' to me because they think im a mate

[Anonymous No.13117034]

>>13113253
watched the first five seconds. he sounds dumb.
the issue is not that beastiality harms the animal, the issue is that it harms the human.

[Anonymous No.13117039]

>>13113797
>dude, I fuck dogs
-someone on /lit/, 2019.

[Anonymous No.13117047]

>>13113263
don't make excuses

[Anonymous No.13117052]

For me, it's beagles.

[Anonymous No.13117057]

>>13117015
cats apparently think we are giant retarded cats. They see our faces as being catlike according to some study of their visual processing

[Anonymous No.13117058]

>>13115377
>Focusing on the act instead of the actors leads to an absurd morality: If I cleave someone's leg with an axe, I'm going to jail. Should the same happen when I do it to a tree trunk?
You've just abstracted it a step further. I was framing an identical situation in a different light, you painted two completely different ones.

>That's just obviously wrong, even for humans
How?

>>13115551
Sex with dolphins would be rape, even if they're wet for it, because like children, they can't consent

[Anonymous No.13117059]

>>13117057
that explains a lot

[Anonymous No.13117063]

>>13117058
consexual sex is a meme from the 2010s

[Anonymous No.13117067]

>>13117058
>Sex with dolphins would be rape, even if they're wet for it, because like children, they can't consent
what if the dolphin literally rapes you?

[Anonymous No.13117081]

>>13117067
then it's okay because nature is wise and cool
-liberals, probably

[Anonymous No.13117106]

>>13117067
Rape if you goaded it to. Although I suppose it wouldn't be rape anyway then.. Either way, animal consent isn't involved

[Anonymous No.13117224]

>muh consent
Consent is an illusion in the atheistic/materialist worldview.

>muh consent!!!!
Kids don't consent to going to school half the time, Dogs don't consent to going to the vet or taking medicine, yet we force them. Because we assume those things are good for them.
If they cant consent For Something then they can't consent Against Something, so then who determines if the act is good or bad for them, on what grounds? If the act is good then one could say "they cant consent against it because they lack consent in general" so it's good to apply some force, for their benefit, even if there is a little harm in the process (think of the Dentist analogy).

This is what Singerian atheism and veganism do to you.

[Anonymous No.13117296]

>>13113569
Animals don't have a concept of consent.

But I mean I personally think we shouldn't fuck animals lol

[Anonymous No.13117308]

>>13117296
>But I mean I personally think we shouldn't fuck animals lol
t. /pol/tard
hows mein kampf and evola?

[Anonymous No.13117311]

Dogs fucking women is fine, dog gets laid woman gets laid it's all good
Men fucking dogs is twisted though
This is a justifiable double standard (most double standards are desu)

[Anonymous No.13117330]

>>13113272
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.13117351]

>>13117311
t. homosexual bug chaser

[Anonymous No.13117362]

>>13117311
Justifiable if you hold a certain conception of masculinity. A female dog cannot "get laid" because...?

[Anonymous No.13117370]

>>13113240
Is it just me or is this an almost cartoonish portrait of cultural decline. I wonder what previous cultures would tolerate such an opinion being expressed. There is nothing wrong with anything.

[Anonymous No.13117374]

>>13117362
A male dog has to get hard and initiate the boning
A female dog can't initiate shit, she just sits there and gets raped

[Anonymous No.13117397]

>>13113781
>"Spooky moral principles" are a consequence of our evolution
Finally! somebody making the correct argument for the basis of morality (unironically).

[Anonymous No.13117407]

>>13117311
I mean, you can also get a male dog to fuck a male human, since humans have have one of the biggest dick in relation to their sizes, fucking a dog would be immortal because of the risk of hurting them, now, fucking a horse is bad because their dick size could hurt you but fucking one isn't since their vaginas are ample enough for a human dick, vwalah, enjoy your bestiality humies.

[Anonymous No.13117410]

>>13117374
But the dog getting hard is just as much an automatic reaction as would be a female dog "allowing" herself to be fucked by a male human while in heat. By your standard, all dog-on-dog sex is rape because the female dog "can't initiate shit." If you've ever seen a woman seduce a dog (intentionally or unintentionally), you'd realize that the male dog has as little ability to "initiate" in that sense as the female. This is why both are considered bestiality.

[Anonymous No.13117420]

>>13113240
I cant believe no one has linked this yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1faGNp9xvNQ

[Anonymous No.13117422]

>>13117039
priceless. this thread just keeps getting better.

[Anonymous No.13117426]

>>13117410
animals rape each other all the time.

[Anonymous No.13117430]

>>13117374
Potential for retribution in the case of refusal comes with all sex, which is therefore rape. We can only require that sex isn't that rapey. When the female is wet and presenting without the occurrence of any overt threat we should allow it as an acceptable level of rape.

[Anonymous No.13117433]

>>13113272
Holy fucking BASED

[Anonymous No.13117436]

>>13117420
thought it would be the dolphin fucker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEX33vAyF5Y

[Anonymous No.13117452]

>>13117374
>A female dog can't initiate shit, she just sits there and gets raped
You could lay on the floor with your penis fully erect and the bitch can cover your dick with its vagina or suck it. How's that?

[Anonymous No.13117590]

>>13115097

[Anonymous No.13117606]

literally ZERO things wrong with necrophillia. sure, corpses can't consent, but it's not like anyone is harmed (unless you get dick maggots or something).

[Anonymous No.13117609]

>>13113240
God I hate jews so goddamn much.

:^)

[Anonymous No.13117613]

>>13117606
>muh harm
>muh harm
>muh harm
Stay away from my family's graveyard you freak

[Anonymous No.13117622]

>>13117606
What if I declare my body the property of anyone who wants to quickly burn it and until then prevent anyone from sticking their dick in it?

[Anonymous No.13117627]

>>13117613
think of it as a kind of modern viking funeral

[Anonymous No.13117628]

>>13117609
Fuck, Singer is Jewish? I can't stand him. We read him constantly in my university philosophy classes

[Anonymous No.13117725]

>>13117628
me too
coincidence

[Anonymous No.13117727]

>>13117725
Pretty funny... I didn't know he was running around town saying women he knew fucked dogs though.

[Anonymous No.13117730]

>>13117609
Go back to /pol/.

It’s white women who do that shit

[Anonymous No.13117768]

>>13117730
But a kike is advocating for it. A perceived thought leader. So in turn is telling women to do it through his influence.

I wish I was a blind fool like you. My life was so much simpler. I was so much happier. But I know you're not happy like I was. You're on /lit/. I already hated kikes and was unhappy when I got here.

So you're blind and angry. Get bent nerd.

[Anonymous No.13117999]

>>13113876
>Don't you just have a natural revulsion for that kind of thing that defies all argumentation? Isn't that a good enough reason to oppose it?

[Anonymous No.13118008]

>>13114780
this

[Anonymous No.13118073]

>>13113373
Fuck you nigger, it won’t be so “spooky” when I’m forcing my will upon you

[Anonymous No.13118075]

>>13117727
it is true that women spread peanut butter on their pussy in order to get their dog to lick though

[Anonymous No.13118078]

>>13118073
This was meant for who you were replying to but it applies to you too as well as anyone who calls anything spooky

[Anonymous No.13118079]

>>13114695

Only formal fallacies are fallacies in any real sense.

[Anonymous No.13118114]

>>13114711
just physical harm?

[Anonymous No.13118152]

>>13117407
what kind of mongoloid spells it “vwahla”

[Anonymous No.13118373]

>>13114731
What's so "clear" about it? There have been cultures where such infanticide was standard practice (e.g. the Greco-Roman culture).

[Anonymous No.13118389]

>>13113240
How is he wrong? Ive had multiple dogs try and hump me. Its obvious they are very horny.

[Anonymous No.13118402]

>>13113272
>an a national socialist
Can you get any more cringe than this? If its not anymore obvious that only dumb people are drawn to Nazism this guys spelling should do it.

[Anonymous No.13118415]

>>13113569
So how can they consent to me owning them?

[Anonymous No.13118456]

>>13118389
Did you try and hump them back?

[Anonymous No.13118468]

>>13118389
>ya my mom fucks dogs, so what? pleasure is pleasure
based feminism
recommend me some progressivism books

[Anonymous No.13118495]

The failure of secular ethics is a proof for the existence of god. Going against gods command can only end in destruction.

[Anonymous No.13118499]

>>13113249
based

[Anonymous No.13118595]

>>13113240
curb is going in an interesting direction

[Anonymous No.13118696]

>>13113265
>not wrong though,
>the only way to deny and say that it is wrong is to appeal to some spooky moral principles
>if it is not harmful,
How do you define harmful, and why is harmful bad?
The only way you could possibly posit that it ought not be done because it's harmful, is to put a defined value on what is harmful, painful, or pleasurable. To you, and most every other Utilitarian, pleasure ("happiness") and pain are the only absolutes and intrinsically valuable things. Human dignity, life, virtue, and well-being have no intrinsic values. Human beings themselves have no intrinsic value, even though human beings are the and arbiters of pleasure and pain, and logically must be greater than pleasure and pain.
Screwing animals is degenerate, because the offender turns himself into something lower than the animal.
All Utilitarians are hypocrites and liars. They have made themselves lower than animals.

[Anonymous No.13118723]

>>13113552
Based

[Anonymous No.13118733]

>>13115407
Yeah, you are a brainlet for not being able to free yourself from socially enforced morality. You're a fucking /pol/ poster for crying out loud, you act as if you were the one that is not influenced by our society.

[Anonymous No.13118766]

>>13118733
>free yourself from socially enforced morality
but globohomo is the current norm

what book you reading?

[Anonymous No.13118899]

Plutarch's Moralia

[Anonymous No.13118905]

>>13118373
True, but in our Judeo-Christian culture infanticide (or any significant form of eugenics. for that matter) is evil and shouldn't be allowed, because sky daddy needs more retards being bred year after year so that his cult doesn't just die off naturally as it would.

[Anonymous No.13118906]

>>13113812
>>13115495
>>13115517
>>13117039

[Anonymous No.13118924]

>>13113272
>an a national socialist
Never post again.

[Anonymous No.13118931]

>>13118924
stfu faggot

[Anonymous No.13118937]

>>13114711
Yeah I was pretty disappointed when I read it. Why call yourself Satanist if you're scared to hurt people?

[Anonymous No.13118953]

>>13115265
Tons upon tons of shit is done without any "consent" to animals, children and humans in general just because. What does make sex so philosophically special that a category of consent adopts a special meaning for it as opposed to everything else?

[Anonymous No.13118956]

>>13118953
>What does make sex so philosophically special that a category of consent adopts a special meaning for it as opposed to everything else?
It hurts my virgin eyes

[Anonymous No.13118964]

>>13118937
Allows you to larp as a rebel while being a basic bitch repeating the current year talking points.
Really disappointing.

[Anonymous No.13118969]

>>13113240
This is not even the final form of the utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.13118970]

Daily reminder that "degeneracy" is actually a good thing

[Anonymous No.13118978]

>>13118970
It's not the worst that can be, but it's still no good.

[Anonymous No.13118994]

>>13118953
You're right that it's not logically consistent. The reasoning is backwards in order to justify the more base disgust we feel about the subject. We support the murder of animals, keep them in cages, destroy their environments.

However, there really isn't anything as intimate and directly preventable as this.

>What does make sex so philosophically special that a category of consent adopts a special meaning for it as opposed to everything else?
Is this even a new concept? You could say the same thing about the sanctity of life itself. Do microorganisms deserve better? It's all about where one draws one's lines.

>>13117296
Neither do newborns.

[Anonymous No.13119011]

>>13117768
fuck off back to /pol/ you dirty nigger

[Anonymous No.13119016]

>>13118468
Judith Butler "Gender trouble"

[Anonymous No.13119034]

>>13113240
He's (((chosen))) isn't he?

[Anonymous No.13119037]

>>13117058
>I was framing an identical situation in a different light, you painted two completely different ones.
If you think so your definitions of "identical" and "completely different" are arbitrary. But for the sake of argument, if I rub my dick against a tree, am I raping it? What about inanimate objects such as pillows?
>How?
You probably wanted to say that "all parties" have to consent, which isn't as wrong as the original statement.

[Anonymous No.13119095]

>>13119037
>If you think so your definitions of "identical" and "completely different" are arbitrary.
Not really? You changed the actors, I changed the framing. Just like a qualified doctor is more ethically justified at carrying out medical treatment than a psychotic patient, changing actors is not really arbitrary.

> But for the sake of argument, if I rub my dick against a tree, am I raping it? What about inanimate objects such as pillows?
I think we need some basis of consciousness before we can claim the need for consent, so no.

>You probably wanted to say that "all parties" have to consent, which isn't as wrong as the original statement.
No need to be a pedantic twat if you agree with the sentiment, but yeah ok.

[Anonymous No.13119111]

>>13119034
of course
why? jews are the light of the world
have you read the kabbalah?

[Anonymous No.13119114]

>>13118970
t. satan

>>13119111
checked

[Anonymous No.13119115]

>>13119111
tikkun olam is taking too long hurry up please

[Anonymous No.13119120]

>>13113249
Spinoza would not advocate for bestiality (or sex in general), since it does not lead to amor dei intellectualis. This is pure utilitarian degeneracy

[Anonymous No.13119133]

>>13113876
>Would you suddenly accept bestiality if somebody could convince you that the dog wants it?
That still would not count as consent (in the same way it wouldn't count if we were talking 13yo horny kids). Consent has to be informed, and this criterion is beyond dogs' mental capacities.
>Don't you just have a natural revulsion for that kind of thing that defies all argumentation?
That would be irrelevant in absence of decent moral arguments. In this case we have a strong one, centered around the concept of consent, which is inaccessible to animals.
>Isn't that a good enough reason to oppose it?
I don't see why my mere disgust should be accounted when it comes to ethics. That would be a quite narcissist view.

[Anonymous No.13119146]

>>13114954
>probably the strongest argument, but it only works if you fully accept animal rights as a concept. Most people don't and can reject it out of hand
People reject the notion of animal rights because it conceptually and juridically makes no sense. Still, many ethicist (and people in general, at least when it comes to domestic animals) will still support human duties towards animals, which is a much less stupid claim, and which leads to pretty much the same practical consequences. Among the generally accepted duties there's the one that tells you that you should not rape animals.

[Anonymous No.13119149]

>>13119133
>in the same way it wouldn't count if we were talking 13yo horny kids

[Anonymous No.13119153]

>>13119149
Thanks God we have rejected our barbaric ways, freeing most of our children from such traumatic events.

[Anonymous No.13119155]

>>13119153
Yeah, things are so much better for children these days.

Thanks, Christian feminists.

[Anonymous No.13119162]

>>13119095
A "curious little girl" is the same actor as a dog? This has nothing to do with framing, you changed the actors as much as I did.
>we need some basis of consciousness before we can claim the need for consent
The only people who can argue that way without becoming logically inconsistent are those in favor of animal rights. Most people believe that an animal's consent does not matter, that they do not and should not have rights. After all we commit all sorts of "crimes" against them and never care about their consent except in this one area.

If you are a vegan animal rights activist this discussion is much larger than just "consent" and we should be clear about that. But if you aren't, how can you justify your hypocrisy?

[Anonymous No.13119164]

>>13119155
t. seething pedophile

[Anonymous No.13119166]

>>13119164
Don't you have a dog to fuck, roastie?

[Anonymous No.13119168]

>>13119166
I was the one arguing against dog fucking AND pedophilia, dummy
Checkmate :^)

[Anonymous No.13119176]

>>13119168
No one is arguing for pedophilia though.

[Anonymous No.13119179]

>>13119176
>>13119155

[Anonymous No.13119182]

>>13119179
I don't think you know what pedophilia means, roastie.

[Anonymous No.13119186]

>>13119182
>I want to groom children and it is okay because other people do it too
Peak degeneracy

[Anonymous No.13119191]

>>13119186
Literally the opposite, you dumb roastie. Grooming your future wife is what prevented degeneracy to begin with, because it allowed pair bonding to flourish between men and women. Now you have a 18yo who has already fucked multiple men and can't possibly ever stay in a committed relationship.

[Anonymous No.13119204]

>>13115265
Children and animals can obviously consent, the argument shifts to a vague "informed consent" which essentially means anything anyone might later regret or not fully understand which adults are expected to have to freedom to go into via the same consenting principle. Regardless the idea that because both parties agree to something it's morally justified, or should even be legally permitted is shallow lolbertardian garbage. The illusion of consent was blown the fuck out when that german "consented" to be cannibalized.

[Anonymous No.13119206]

>>13119191
>having sex before marriage is more degenerate than having sex with children
You're beyond redemption

[Anonymous No.13119213]

>>13119206
Never said anything about having sex with children, you illiterate roastie.

[Anonymous No.13119219]

>>13119206
Fornicators are the living dead.

[Anonymous No.13119220]

>This whole thread.
Lord have mercy on us.

[Anonymous No.13119221]

>>13119213
Yeah, you just want to marry them, you'll totally won't touch them. Hopefully no one will ever trust you with their children

[Anonymous No.13119241]

>>13119221
A 13yo isn't a child, retarded roastie.

[Anonymous No.13119244]

>>13119241
neither is a 7 year old

[Anonymous No.13119246]

>>13119241
Is this what you will tell yourself when your girlfriend will ask you help for her middle school homeworks?

[Anonymous No.13119248]

>>13119244
Prepubescent individuals are children.

[Anonymous No.13119249]

How common is it for a woman to have sex with a dog?

[Anonymous No.13119255]

>>13119246
>girlfriend
wife

[Anonymous No.13119256]

>>13119248
You stop being children when you grow out of the chubby toddler phase.

[Anonymous No.13119259]

>>13119246
>help for her middle school homeworks
You that like it's a bad thing and I should instead help her get over the countless dicks she had in her life.

[Anonymous No.13119260]

>>13119249
If she owns an unfixed male dog about 80%

[Anonymous No.13119261]

>>13119249
Too common.

[Anonymous No.13119262]

>>13119206
>>13119221
>>13119241
>>13119244
If the Prophet (pbuh) did it, then it is permitted.

[Anonymous No.13119263]

>>13119256
If they can't reproduce they're still children. Nature's rules, not mine.

[Anonymous No.13119265]

>>13119246
if her age is on the clock she is ready for the

[Anonymous No.13119268]

>>13119263
Children can reproduce though. The "period" is a meme. They bleed after making a deal with the devil. Bleeding from the cunt means she's a witch.

[Anonymous No.13119272]

>>13119249
>>13119260
>>13119261
Why then women never speak about it, and only this kike guy who brings it up?

[Anonymous No.13119275]

>>13119262
Mashallah, brother.

[Anonymous No.13119299]

>>13119272
>why don't you speak about this thing that is at best social suicide, at worst a literal crime
hmm, yeah I wonder about that, too...

[Anonymous No.13119304]

>>13119272
wow de joos are out to fuck your beautiful wife and destroy le ebin western civilization and all morality

[Anonymous No.13119337]

observe

[Anonymous No.13119346]

cute but silly

[Anonymous No.13119354]

This board is fucked up beyond repair.

[Anonymous No.13119357]

>>13118937
Because the pourpose of that book is to make you a satanist, not a liberal. LaVey really believed in Satan as a being, and in magick as a supernatural thing, not just theatre.
But the official thing is that everythingnis just fake and theatre, and kids fall for it.

[Anonymous No.13119384]

If you think it's ok to castrate and walk a dog in a leash but not have sex with them, then you are a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.13119407]

>>13119384
made me think unironically

[Anonymous No.13119412]

>>13119384
b-but muh consent

[Anonymous No.13119448]

>>13113797
>>13113781
These are the best posts on the thread by far.

Someone with a well reasoned, thoughtful argument about why fornicating with animals should actually be considered bad.

And an unapologetic hedonist dogfucker who doesn't give a shit.

[Anonymous No.13119521]

>>13113240
This demeanstres how society has lost its aboitky to act.
Any moron can tell you why it is wrong, but instead of being denounced by his overseerer board and tusties, we debate his ideas on his terms.

[Anonymous No.13119547]

The gayest book

[Anonymous No.13119588]

>>13113240
Why the fuck is the headline about animal-fucking, when his endorsement of pedophilia is far, FAR worse?

[Anonymous No.13119617]

>>13119384
It’s bad for you psychologically and for society, only retards worry about intellectual coldesaacks like the dogs moral rights,

[Anonymous No.13119838]

>>13118970
Nope, kys

[Anonymous No.13119845]

>>13113240
Me reading this thread

[Anonymous No.13120038]

>>13113265
Define "harmful"

[Anonymous No.13120043]

>>13113569
I think if the dog is humping that probably means it’s ok with the sex, ergo it’s consented. Dogs ain’t that complex, Sweaty. If they don’t wanna do something they bite you and leave. Dogs are very “no means no.” You always know where you stand with a dog.

[Anonymous No.13120125]

>>13113240

[Anonymous No.13120140]

>>13113240
>mfw he's 100% correct

[Anonymous No.13120276]

>>13119617
Not a good reason to outlaw anything unless you want a nanny state.

[Anonymous No.13120292]

>>13113240
this isn't wrong; it is just retarded and a sign that you, yourself are severely broken and retarded as well.

[Anonymous No.13120345]

>>13119357
this is inaccurate. He didn't believe in Satan as anything real, just a guise for controversial theatre. Not sure whether he believed in magic or not. But the former is why by definition he isn't believed to be a real Satanist.

[Anonymous No.13120466]

>>13113240
And here people were thinking it was just a meme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1faGNp9xvNQ

[Anonymous No.13121194]

this is probably the best thread on 4chan right now

[Anonymous No.13121254]

>>13115304
this

even before reading the article I could tell from this degenerate face he is a filthy jew

[Anonymous No.13121267]

>>13113240
I feel this is another case of teachers fucking students. It's fine if the female is the one doing it.

[Anonymous No.13121288]

>>13121254
let's see the ubermensch's face

[Anonymous No.13121396]

Me? I think we should start killing furfags and furfag enablers. Every doxx accompanied by an anonymous bullet, a random rope.

[Anonymous No.13122150]

>>13119588
Becaude that's getting normalised you filthy goyi- I mean bigot.

[Anonymous No.13122176]

>>13113797
Not based until you fuck dead puppies to check off all of the boxes at once.

[Anonymous No.13123375]

>>13119588
Pedophilia isn't even common, he was probably using it in the meme meaning (i.e. hebephilia and ephebephilia). Those are completely natural and most of the males can see the appeal (there was a study where they measured penile girth in a sample of normal men when shown different pics and even though most wouldn't admit to liking underages their involuntary reactions betrayed their attraction).

[Anonymous No.13123737]

>>13114711
Would one be hurting/debasing oneself by following this ethos?

[Anonymous No.13123826]

>>13113272
You're fucking retarded but I cannot help but respect that unlike liberals you are letting your perverse sense of superiority fester out in the open like this.

[Anonymous No.13124790]

>>13123375
>meme meaning
he was talking about 10 year olds

[Anonymous No.13126142]

>>13113240
Fake

[Anonymous No.13126171]

>>13126142
>Singer being edgy
>fake
why?

[Anonymous No.13126547]

>Singer's parents were Austrian Jews who immigrated to Australia from Vienna in 1938, after Austria's annexation by Nazi Germany

What more needs to be said?