Wolf/Dog Rape

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:32 am

Yeah. I mean seriously, we've covered this topic before and already did it to death.

And again, it's hugely simple: Werewolves and wolves can mate and produce offspring. Hence, they're the same species. This isn't bestiality. Squicky maybe, but not bestiality. But this is World of Darkness anyway. You expect squick out of the Date Rape game.

Moreover, the fluff makes it pretty clear that werwolves are a species operating on a level completely foreign to human norms, so it's pretty dumb to apply human morality against them.

As an example: Shooting people is wrong, but that's because we humans decided "thou shall not kill". Yet when we shoot wolves, that's generally seen as pest control. Which is going to piss the hell out of the werewolves because for some of them - their moms and dads are actual Int 3 wolves.

Heck that's probably why werewolves don't want to walk openly amongst humans - because they think we're utter bastards who happily shoot their ancestors and next-of-kin.

Really, the only reason why this debate seems to be still going on it because Frank raged about it incoherently and people are dogpiling (or ass-kissing) on his insistence that it's his way or the highway.

Move on.

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:45 am

At it's core, the goal here appears to be to "have a debate about moral subjectivity in a goddamn dogrape thread."

With that goal in mind, we can now come to a better understanding of the morality in indulging in carnal pleasures with a dog.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:48 am

Really!

Hey, has anyone read Montreal By Night recently? I just thought I'd remind folks of the splash page at the start of Chapter Four.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:56 am

Molochio wrote:At it's core, the goal here appears to be to "have a debate about moral subjectivity in a goddamn dogrape thread."

That's the thing about morality though. There is no "it's my way or the highway" when it comes to morality.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:44 am

Koumei wrote:...and I wake up to this.

God damn it, Den. Really?

Yes, really.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:38 am

Calibron wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:*stuff*
-Username17
Okay, but where exactly is the line? Is it immoral to use a cucumber as a sex toy? Why do we care about animal rights at all on the micro scale? At what point of intellectual development should we start caring about a species' rights or feelings?

The line is sentience. The second line is adult human intelligence. Anything that is not sentient (like a carrot or a starfish) is not an individual, it's not a partner during sex, it's just a tool. Anything that is sentient like a dog, a boy, or a man, would be a sexual partner if you had sex with them. And if that sexual partner does not have the three things:

Adult Human Intelligence
Mental Competence
Consent

Then your actions are not moral. This really isn't very difficult. That we appear to have a bunch of armchair philosophers defending rape in instances where they happen to not feel any empathy for someone is frankly revolting.

-Username17

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:03 am

Penny Arcade seems to be against dog fucking... this year.... maybe.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:05 am

You know what, I'll be the first to say it, I don't give a shit about morals. Ok? Think I'm terrible all you want, but ultimately you're words on a computer screen to me. Morals are codes of behaviour developed to allow our species to live past the "frightened, violent, paranoid carnivourous prey animal" stage where without them we'd have killed each other out. Now, we have better things to tell us not to do something. Like jail and social ostracization.

I find the humanocentric terms in which Frank puts this interesting because it allows him to say that a theoretical omniscient being having sex with him with his consent is perfectly moral because he's an adult human, rather than just as immoral as a human fucking a wolf, which is actually a smaller intelligence gap than a human and an omniscient being.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Penny Arcade seems to be against dog fucking... this year.... maybe.

However, they're perfectly ok with (possibly dick-headed) wolves raping people:

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:34 pm

@Zinegata: For the paladin there is a view of "it's my way or the highway" when it comes to morality."
A paladin will actually pack his bags and hit the road if his associates are of a radically different morality than what he perceives as good.

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:55 pm

I believe that we can all agree that rape is bad. Yes?
It ruins lives and causes permanent psychological damage.

This is problematic because men have a notable desire to conduct rape.
This desire is prevalent among social classes as diverse as criminals and priests. Princes and marines.

While I certainly have no desire to see an animal's sexual liberties violated, once we have concluded that men want to and WILL rape others, and I believe that conclusion is obvious and easily met.

Then the dog's misfortune is preferable to that of an adult of human intelligence and mental competence who does not consent being raped in it's place.
Is it not?

Gnosticism Is A Hoot · Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:37 pm

While it's probably a good thing that this thread has been split out, seeing my name as the thread starter did give me a bit of a shock.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:42 pm

Molochio wrote:@Zinegata: For the paladin there is a view of "it's my way or the highway" when it comes to morality."

And that's not actually necessarily good. People who impose their own morals and cultures on others often don't do so nicely. They simply kill everyone who will not agree with them.

So no, just because Paladins exist in fiction doesn't mean that "my way or the highway morality" is automatically good. In fact, it's precisely this sort of intolerant douchebaggery that results in stuff like genocide.

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:54 pm

Also true.
Hence the crusades.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:31 pm

Zinegata wrote: And again, it's hugely simple: Werewolves and wolves can mate and produce offspring. Hence, they're the same species. This isn't bestiality. Squicky maybe, but not bestiality.

That is the stupidest argument I've seen thrown around recently. And that is speaking as someone who has been reading threads where people attempt to use moral relativism to defend dog rape.

Something being able to breed with you does not mean that you are the same species. Mules. Moving on. Even the ability to produce fertile offspring is not a particularly good definition because by that definition werewolves wouldn't be the same species as themselves. Also it would mean that transitively humans and dogs were the same species because they could both mate with a garou and make a fertile offspring (assuming that the definition of species you are using is at least sophisticated enough to figure out that two men are the same species).

But more importantly, the fact that something is the same species as you in no way means that fucking them is remotely OK. Physically possible perhaps, but not necessarily moral. A nine year old girl is presumably the same species as you are, but molesting her is still wrong. She could very plausibly have had her first period ad be entirely capable of breeding, and molesting her is still wrong.

It is entirely likely that it is possible for a human to breed with a chimpanzee. Furthermore, such offspring would probably have roughly 1/4 the fertility of a normal human or chimpanzee when mating with a human or chimpanzee because of the Chromosome 2 fusion event that cuts our line of hominids from the rest. But that fact really has no bearing at all on whether chimp fucking is bestiality or moral.

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:51 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Something being able to breed with you does not mean that you are the same species. Mules. Moving on. Even the ability to produce fertile offspring is not a particularly good definition because by that definition werewolves wouldn't be the same species as themselves. Also it would mean that transitively humans and dogs were the same species because they could both mate with a garou and make a fertile offspring (assuming that the definition of species you are using is at least sophisticated enough to figure out that two men are the same species).

What it means is that garou are a species with four sexes: female garou, female wolf, male garou, and male wolf. Viable offspring can (apparently) only be produced by two out of eight possible pairings.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:03 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Something being able to breed with you does not mean that you are the same species. Mules. Moving on. Even the ability to produce fertile offspring is not a particularly good definition because by that definition werewolves wouldn't be the same species as themselves. Also it would mean that transitively humans and dogs were the same species because they could both mate with a garou and make a fertile offspring (assuming that the definition of species you are using is at least sophisticated enough to figure out that two men are the same species).
What it means is that garou are a species with four sexes: female garou, female wolf, male garou, and male wolf. Viable offspring can (apparently) only be produced by two out of eight possible pairings.

You're leaving out the "sexes" of male human and female human. By that definition, humans and wolves are the same species. And of the 15 possible combinations of the six sexes, 6 pairs can produce viable offspring, 2 of which can produce only two different sexes in the offspring, 2 of which can produce 4 different sexes, and 2 of which can produce all 6. Also there is one pairing that produces sterile offspring exclusively, and 8 pairings that cannot produce any offspring. And that's before we get to the genetics of kinfolk.

But that is a rather stupid way to look at the ring species phenomenon.

-Username17

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:19 pm

Ah, I didn't realize they could just fuck humans instead of wolves. Why don't they do that?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:29 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Ah, I didn't realize they could just fuck humans instead of wolves. Why don't they do that?

Most do. A small minority fuck other werewolves (which is immoral by their standards and produces sterile offspring seen as abominations), and some fuck wolves. Usually you find the ones born as and raised by people fucking people and those born as and raised by wolves fucking wolves.

Seriously, Frank's argument that it's akin to paedophilia is fallacious. At worst it's more ephebophilia, because, as I've pointed out several times, WtA wolves are a good bit more intelligent than normal, our world wolves. There's also the fact that Lupus werewolves, those born as and raised (usually) by wolves, are themselves essentially full on asperger's with their social skills. They have about as much trouble with people as people do with wolves, interaction wise. So the ones that fuck wolves are, by in large, doing what comes naturally to them.

If you gave your dog sentience, right now, after however many years as a normal dog, what would you expect it to fuck? Humans? It'd have to have been deviant to begin with.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:35 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Ah, I didn't realize they could just fuck humans instead of wolves. Why don't they do that?

Because World of Darkness.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:57 pm

Why is this subject so fascinating?

Molochio · Post by **Molochio** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:13 pm

@Maj: At this point, there are many people with a deep personal investiture in the outcome of this deliberation as to the questionable morality of it and whether or not it may even be considered rape.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:17 pm

Molochio wrote:@Maj: At this point, there are many people with a deep personal investiture in the outcome of this deliberation as to the questionable morality of it and whether or not it may even be considered rape.

Seriously, wtf is your problem? Why do you have to keep accusing people of dog raping? Most people in this thread are assholes and/or retarded, but you are the only one who has posted nothing but accusations of dog rape.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:37 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:But more importantly, the fact that something is the same species as you in no way means that fucking them is remotely OK. Physically possible perhaps, but not necessarily moral. A nine year old girl is presumably the same species as you are, but molesting her is still wrong. She could very plausibly have had her first period ad be entirely capable of breeding, and molesting her is still wrong.

I just want to make two points here. The first point is physical. Humans, as well as most animals are as much a product of their environment as their genes. Modern advances in diet has drastically shortened the onset of puberty in females to a point where fertiliy is possible before organs (the womb in particular) are advanced enough to handle full blown pregnancies without the potential for significant complications.

(In fact she may not even be developed enough for intercourse with a fully grown adult male; resulting in significant physical damage.)

The second point is equally important. The real reason behind laws against molestation of minors is as much mental as it is physical. Such encounters can leave emotional scars on a young developing child that may never fully heal and from which the child may never fully emotionally recover from.

This is why I'm having a hard time with your trying to couple animals and children together. I just don't see the same emotional damage that occurs with child molestation.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:05 pm

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/df4466 ... t-happened

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:13 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:If you gave your dog sentience, right now, after however many years as a normal dog, what would you expect it to fuck? Humans? It'd have to have been deviant to begin with.

I can't really say about humans, but most small dogs when they reach puberty generally do have strong desires to fuck the first pair of new Levis they encounter. (Note to understanding dogs, smell is the most important sense they have; if they were to be sentient I'm sure every expression we use "see" they would use "smell.")