Wolf/Dog Rape

[Username17]

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.

Child molestation doesn't get any better if you give the children roofies so that they don't remember the incident. There's no lasting psychological damage from the memories because there are no memories, but it's still wrong.

Child molestation isn't wrong because of the lasting harm that it does to a developing psyche. Child molestation isn't wrong because the children are too young to understand what they are agreeing to. Child molestation doesn't magically become acceptable if you figure out some sort of work around to those very real issues. Child molestation is wrong because having sex with someone who is not equivalent to an adult human is in all cases morally wrong.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

This is, of course, why owning a pet at all makes you a kidnapper.

[sabs]

So what about the werewolves that are born as regular wolves, and grow up amongst regular wolves?

Why is it wrong for them to be dogfuckers? Shouldn't them banging humans be more squeeky?

[Kaelik]

because having sex with someone who is not equivalent to an adult human is in all cases morally wrong.

Because Morally wrong means "Frank says it's morally wrong"?

Seriously, why is it morally wrong besides bare assertion. Why is it morally wrong to have sex with a non intelligent thing?

[Red_Rob]

Why is it morally wrong to have sex with a non intelligent thing?

So... many... blonde jokes

[tzor]

Child molestation doesn't get any better if you give the children roofies so that they don't remember the incident. There's no lasting psychological damage from the memories because there are no memories, but it's still wrong.

Child molestation isn't wrong because of the lasting harm that it does to a developing psyche. Child molestation isn't wrong because the children are too young to understand what they are agreeing to. Child molestation doesn't magically become acceptable if you figure out some sort of work around to those very real issues. Child molestation is wrong because having sex with someone who is not equivalent to an adult human is in all cases morally wrong.

Frank, I find your arguments fascinating, almost fundamentalist. So, if you will allow me to nit pick on this for a moment. What is an "adult human?" Biologically speaking, the definition of adulthood is defined at puberty; a very bad definition for your argument. At the most extreeme end one could suggest that it should be based on the point where the frontal lobe is fully developed (which in turn counterbalances our normally impulsive behavior) at or around the 20's.

(Or this could be one of those definitions of life; "Life does not begin until the children have graduated from college.")

And I see there isn't any connection on the other end; apparently anyone having sex with a non-adult human is morally wrong, even if that person is also a non-adult human? "Romeo and Juliet" is clearly a case of double moral wrongs. (Good thing they both committed suicide in the end.) Come to think of it, so were a lot (if not most) sexual acts of humans up until modern times.

[tzor]

Why is it morally wrong to have sex with a non intelligent thing?

So... many... blonde jokes

So... little... time
futility - epic motivational posters
Considering this thread ... double epic.

[Username17]

This is, of course, why owning a pet at all makes you a kidnapper.

False equivalence is still false though. Having a pet would only make you a kidnapper if having a kid did. But since it is entirely possible to have a child belong to you without being a kidnapper, it is equally and to the same extent possible to have a dog belong to you without being a dognapper.

So what about the werewolves that are born as regular wolves, and grow up amongst regular wolves?

Why is it wrong for them to be dogfuckers? Shouldn't them banging humans be more squeeky?

What about humans born as regular children, and grow up amongst regular children? Why is it wrong for them to be childfuckers?

Because if you are a moral agent who has adult human intelligence, it is wrong for you to have sex with an intelligent being who is not. Period. That's the only reason, but it is both necessary and sufficient to make child fucking wrong.

Why is it morally wrong to have sex with a non intelligent thing?

It's not. It is wrong to have sex with an intelligent thing that is less intelligent than an adult human. That is the sum total of why you are not allowed to put your penis into the mouths of children while they are asleep.

Rather than hem and haw about how it's OK to fuck a dog, go ahead and present some alternate ethical framework where it's not OK to slip your penis into the mouth of a sleeping child and it's somehow OK to fuck a dog. No special pleading, just moral framworks. Put up or shut up.

So, if you will allow me to nit pick on this for a moment.

No. I will not. Because that is a disgusting and trivial argument to have that has no right answers (though many wrong ones). The line at which someone becomes competent as an adult in the real world (as opposed to being treated as such in legal documents), is incredibly vague and hard to pin down.

But this discussion isn't about narrow edge cases like "Is it OK to fuck a 14 year old girl if she's really mature?" It's about an incredibly simple case: one is a fully competent adult human moral agent and the other has the sentience of Spuds MacKenzie. People who actually want to have discussions where they make philosophical arguments for raising or lowering the age of consent are disturbed people. I genuinely feel uncomfortable even having that conversation.

-Username17

[mean_liar]

This is, of course, why owning a pet at all makes you a kidnapper.

False equivalence is still false though. Having a pet would only make you a kidnapper if having a kid did. But since it is entirely possible to have a child belong to you without being a kidnapper, it is equally and to the same extent possible to have a dog belong to you without being a dognapper.

So if we can own the intellectually inferior, why can't we buy the severely handicapped?

What's your moral framework here? Because it looks like a simple appeal to social norms as the authority, rather than any pertinent checklist, and we both know that there are social norms where pedophilia isn't looked down on... maybe even zoophilia as well (not sure about that one).

[Orion]

Frank,

So you're disowning utilitarianism now? I thought things were always and only evaluated by their consequences. I mean, it's not like it's hard to get an ironclad prohibition on child molestation out of utilitarianism, that's why rule utilitarianism exists.

Fucking a child is wrong because it almost always leads to bad consequences for the child. Even if you think it won't, you shouldn't risk it. Doing the ethical calculus is hard, a lot harder than just *not fucking children*, so the sensible thing for a utilitarian to do is treat it as though it were a sacred tablet.

But the actual reason it's wrong is that its consequences are bad.

[Username17]

So if we can own the intellectually inferior, why can't we buy the severely handicapped?

There are laws restricting the owning of the severely mentally handicapped in order to protect normal adults from being declared stupid and enslaved. Because that totally happened and it was really fucked up.

That being said, people actually do own the mentally ill and severely retarded. That's what guardianship is. There are lots of restrictions on it to keep it from bing abused, but it's a thing that totally exists and honestly is more sad than it is an affront to public morals or anything.

-Username17

[tzor]

So, if you will allow me to nit pick on this for a moment.

No. I will not. Because that is a disgusting and trivial argument to have that has no right answers (though many wrong ones). The line at which someone becomes competent as an adult in the real world (as opposed to being treated as such in legal documents), is incredibly vague and hard to pin down.

Bullshit Frank. You have pinned this down as an absolute moral argument. You have (without any argument to do so) coupled that of a dog and a human child. You are the one who has divorced this whole argument from the POV of the animal/child (it's not physical damage, or emotional damage or even the potential for pain) and in its stead replaced it with NOTHING.

So here we are talking about having sex with an animal and you still can't give a reason why it is wrong. You use terms you refuse to define; you keep trying to link the apple with the orange but God forbid we should discuss the orange.

Because if you are a moral agent who has adult human intelligence, it is wrong for you to have sex with an intelligent being who is not. Period. That's the only reason, but it is both necessary and sufficient to make child fucking wrong.

That is so ... "WHO IS NOT ... WHAT?" (Adult? Intelligent? Moral?)

But let's get back to animals, since obviously you have no clue about the moral prolem with regards to children. (In fact you have rejected out of hand all of the basic classic arguments for why it is not moral save for the argument of chastity itself which has not been brought up so far.) Why is having sex with an animal so horribly immoral (considering that animals have sex with animals all the time). Is having sex with a robot immoral? Clearly having sex with an object is not immoral as you have alreay dismissed that notion entirely, but what is the difference between the doll, the robot and the animal?

So far, your only argument is because you say so. That's not an argument. Of all people, I can't believe you would make such an argument.

[Datawolf]

Keep up the good work fellas, this thread is awesome!

[Kaelik]

, it is wrong for you to have sex with an intelligent being who is not. Period.

Why? Because Frank said so twice? That's not a good reason. For what reason is it wrong to have sex with an animal?

It's not. It is wrong to have sex with an intelligent thing that is less intelligent than an adult human. That is the sum total of why you are not allowed to put your penis into the mouths of children while they are asleep.

I can think of a lot of much better arguments for why it is not okay to have sex with sleeping children. I say better because they don't require making up a priori axioms about what kind of sex is and isn't immoral, they base them on axioms that are general in nature, and extrapolate to not having sex with children.

We get it Frank, you have declared the axiom "all sex except this kind is immoral, because I said so" many many times. Now give us one good reason to actually accept this axiom. You have presented no reason to accept your claims any more than someone saying that homosexual sex is wrong. They can just as easily make up axioms as you can.

Rather than hem and haw about how it's OK to fuck a dog, go ahead and present some alternate ethical framework where it's not OK to slip your penis into the mouth of a sleeping child and it's somehow OK to fuck a dog. No special pleading, just moral framworks. Put up or shut up.

I am a moral error theorist Frank. That means that I don't think that moral frameworks are true. I don't care if the false moral framework under discussion allows/encourages/prohibits fucking sleeping kids, because they are all false.

I mean, I can make up one, because literally all you've done is declare your desired endpoint as true, no really, if I say it enough times, then you'll all agree. So I can do the same thing and just say "You are only allowed to have sex with any non intelligent thing, unless that thing is of the same species as you, in which case, it has to consent, and be mentally competent."

And by the way:

Definition of intelligent: "Showing sound judgment and rationality"

So when you say dogs are intelligent, you are being fucking retarded.

[Zinegata]

Ignoring Frank's blatant baiting and throwing up a semantic debate as a smokescreen, and focusing on this:

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.

And yet the ancient Greeks had absolutely no problem with pedophilia. Again, does this not show that morals are not absolute?

So let me reiterate the core of the argument (which Frank again conveniently ignores because it fucks up his argument):

If a werewolf's MOM is an Int 3 wolf, would it not influence their worldview on what "morality" is? Again, in the eyes of most ordinary people slaughtering wolves is pest control. But for a werewolf, that would be genocide. And they would, in fact, be right to see it as genocide.

So clearly, however you want to classify them, they are operating from norms different from our own. That applies to their views on what is "acceptable" sex just as much as it applies to their views on what is genocide or not.

Again, really, this thread stems entirely from Frank's inability to see that morality is not "my way or the highway". Which is retarded when you consider that we're talking about fantasy races.

It'd be like condemning the Asari from Mass Effect 2 as immoral because they only practiced lesbian sex until they met the rest of the universe. (Of course, guys generally find Asari hot, as opposed to the squick of WoD werewolves).

So... can we just leave Frank alone in his little bubble/safety zone? Because it's pointless to try to make him change his absolutist stance and the rest of the world will march on not giving a fuck to what he says anyway.

[mean_liar]

*I AM A DIRTY DOGNAPPER*

That is all.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Why is this subject so fascinating?

Because people are willing to defend pedophilia and bestiality so they can win an argument on the internet. The internet is serious business, after all.

[Zinegata]

*I AM A DIRTY DOGNAPPER*

That is all.

Why mean_liar? You used to be cool man. WHY?

Kidding aside...

I actually prefer Brian Grifith's (the talking God from Family Guy) quote when he was told about puppies being put to sleep.

"Oh God, stop talking about that! That's like the Holocaust to us!"

[Psychic Robot]

THIS THREAD IS CANCER

[CatharzGodfoot]

THIS THREAD IS CANCER

I've given up already. At least it's just one thread in MPSIMS.

[tzor]

Because people are willing to defend pedophilia and bestiality so they can win an argument on the internet. The internet is serious business, after all.

Actually, I can't even see how I could defend either. I just love tearing down Frank's non argument. The former is wrong for a number of reasons including the physical and emotional damage to the child. The later is well just in general gross. (I'm not even going to get into a discussion about why I would argue that it is wrong, because it would fly over most of the people's heads like the space shuttle.)

Never the less, if you have a creature that can change from one form to another form, I'm having a very hard time understanding Frank's argument. A werewolf is both wolf and man. If a werewolf in wolf form had sex with a human and in human form had sex with a wolf then that would be gross. But as a wolf having sex with a wolf, is natural. Don't give me this half baked notion of sentience vs non sentience, that's bullshit.

Then again, as a result of NationStates Role Playing and a whole lot of NaNoWriMo, I'm the expert on the whole notion of the WerePenguin, so I've been working with this mentality for years now.

[CatharzGodfoot]

(I'm not even going to get into a discussion about why I would argue that it is wrong, because it would fly over most of the people's heads like the space shuttle.)

I can hazard a guess...

“Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.” -Exodus 22:19

“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 18:23

“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.” -Leviticus 20:15-16

“Cursed is the man who has sexual relations with any animal.” -Deuteronomy 27:21

[Zinegata]

People aren't even "defending" pedophilia or bestiality as it applies to modern human society.

It's just that several Denners seriously cannot differentiate "morality is subjective depending on the society" with "I support bestiality among humans!".

If these people are ever asked to represent humanity if we make first contact with aliens, we are gonna end up having a war on our hands after the first meeting.

[tzor]

If these people are ever asked to represent humanity if we make first contact with aliens, we are gonna end up having a war on our hands after the first meeting.

Sci fi fantasies aside, if any real "alien" was even remotely fuckable I would probably spend the rest of my life searching for the galactic conspiracy. The evolution of single cells to complex cells and even the evolution of gender is so specific to this planet and so unique that any alien life form would probably have both a radically different form of procreation and DNA recombination and redistribution.

[Orion]

Tzor,

Your belief that it's more acceptable for a were in wolf form to fuck a wolf makes no sense. I can see where you're coming from, what with the whole catholic "natural law" deal, but that's just silly. The werewolf's mind doesn't change--if it's exploiting the animals one way, it's still exploiting them the other. Frank is correct in asserting that it makes no difference.

Zinegata,

For the record, I don't hold with your relativist stance. Fucking a wolf has exactly the same moral valence whether you were raised by wolves or not and whether your people do it or not. I side with Frank on this.

.