Wolf/Dog Rape

[tzor]

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.

That's an artificial construct that I just don't assume. Our minds are equally molded by our inputs, and he sensual world of human and lupine is as different as night and day. Sex is, first and foremost a sensual experience. I think Frank dismisses the potential importance of sensual shifts on a mindset.

[Username17]

Frank,

So you're disowning utilitarianism now?

Nope. Rule Utilitarianism is still pretty much where I hang my hat. Molesting children is wrong because societies that allow the exploitation of children for sex are horrible. The fact that it is possible to shield an individual from the developmental side effects of being manipulated for sex doesn't make those places that do it into nicer places. Merely allowing and encouraging the powerful to rape the weak makes your society into a proven hellscape - regardless of whether you convince the weak to accept the treatment or keep them from noticing somehow.

Intelligence, mental competence, and consent. This is a proven effective triad. It is possible that people in the future may come up with a better litmus test for sexual morality, but I've never seen one and don't expect to within my lifetime. Every other test people throw around falls into numerous traps of permitting harmful depravity or restricting ultimately harmless sex games or both.

But there's the rub. Having created a rule that successfully divides things that harm the future from things that don't, you then have to follow it. Even, neigh especially in places where you can't immediately articulate why it makes any difference.

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.

Uh... yeah. People argue on behalf of pedophilia and bestiality because they'd rather win an argument than to be on the side arguing against raping children. I'm appalled by this, but whatever. It's the internet.

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

No, this shows that people can be wrong. Next question.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

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.

.

And I seriously don't care. Nobody gives a shit. The universe certainly doesn't.

But again: Do you deny that a fictional society of werewolves - some of whom have Int 3 wolves as Moms and Dads - will probably have different sexual mores and societal norms? In fact, wouldn't these very different sexual mores and societal norms cause people (human beings) to prosecute them? Wouldn't their morality thus be different?

Note that I brought up the aliens thing because a lot of creatures even in our own world do some pretty repulsive things in order to survive.

What if we ever meet a sentient race of Black Widows? Do we condemn their entire race as a bunch of murderous psycopaths?

Morality is relative, ESPECIALLY when you are talking about a completely different species/culture. This is a fact.

And just because people are pointing out this fact doesn't mean we're "defending" pedophilia or bestiality. Moral relativity does not mean "humans are not bound by morals". It means that humans must not try to hold other creatures to a code of morality that may not be compatible with them.

-----

Also, given that Frank's clearly ignoring everything that disproves that "my way or the highway" morality isn't anywhere near universal, and instead just picks snippets that he takes out of context to wail upon, can we stop dogpiling and finally let this thread die?

He ain't changing his mind, and the world isn't going to be changed by his stubborness.

[Orion]

Frank,

My knowledge of antrhopology is limited. As far as I'm aware, bestiality is taboo everywhere and always has been. Therefore, I find it difficult to see how you could have evidence that fucking dogs -> hellscape.

That's why I'm comfortable defining the utilitarian good as "the good *for people*" and not giving a fuck what happens to nonhuman animals.

[Username17]

Also, given that Frank's clearly ignoring everything that disproves that "my way or the highway" morality isn't anywhere near universal...

Zinegata. Shut up.

Demonstrating that a group of people do something does not demonstrate that those people should do that thing. You cannot derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement. Your entire line of reasoning is basically "But I just totally killed that guy, and I think that was OK, so no one should condemn me for it!" It's an incoherent position.

What you are describing is "Normative Relativism" - an idea that you should really research more before you attempt to make a case for it, because it is universally abandoned by philosophers because it is contradictory. Seriously, its extremely damning problems are in the ninth sentence of Wikipedia Article on moral relativism.

If you say that two moral viewpoints are equally valid because they both exist, then you cannot say that my viewpoint (that the other viewpoint is wrong) isn't valid. The premise of your argument is that my viewpoint is valid, so you can't make a coherent argument against my viewpoint.

Relativism is a very difficult thing to make a case for. And you aren't making it by listing a bunch of different people who believe different stuff.

-Username17

[Molochio]

@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.

@Kaelik: Perhaps it has escaped your notice that this is a thread who's title and subject matter is "Wolf/Dog Rape?"

That being the case, I have chosen to offer logical thoughts on the discussion at hand.
Let us cover a premise, that you may come have some aquisition of better understanding.

People are raping dogs, both in a fictional and a nonfictional setting, if having carnal pleasures with such creatures may, in fact, be morally defined as rape.
There is empirical evidence that these acts take place. Thus many of my observations are spoken with that fact in mind.

Where you are mistaken is in the notion that I am making accusations.

While dog/wolf rape DOES occur, I do not beg the question in assuming that any denizen of The Den personally partakes in these passions. They may or may not and I do not and I can not provide proof or disproof of either in any case.

I speak of the dog rapist the generalist terms, and if there is one among us, then said person is welcome to come forth and shed light on his or her views.

Thus, despite whatever personal insecurities you may feel regarding my observations on dog rape, they are neither tailored to nor targeted specifically at you Kaelik, or any other member of our congregation.

They are only logical, unbiased, views on our current deliberation.

[Orion]

Moloch,

If you call dogrape a "passion" one more time you go on ignore.

[Zinegata]

Zinegata. Shut up.

Yeah, here we go. Frank's in his pointless rage mode again (what he calls his "authorative voice").

I arbitrarily blame mean_liar and Kaelik for this .

Demonstrating that a group of people do something does not demonstrate that those people should do that thing.

*AHEM* What I actually said:

Moral relativity does not mean "humans are not bound by morals". It means that humans must not try to hold other creatures to a code of morality that may not be compatible with them.

Thus, I never said anything to the effect of "Just because you can do it, means you should."

What I said is that it's fucking retarded to apply human morals to WEREWOLVES.

Again, to quote the DOG from FAMILY GUY on puppies being put to sleep:

"That's like the Holocaust to us!"

------

Second:

If you say that two moral viewpoints are equally valid because they both exist, then you cannot say that my viewpoint (that the other viewpoint is wrong) isn't valid.

I never said your morality was invalid. So let's drop this "normative" horshit.

I said that it's not universal. I don't believe in "my way or the highway" morality. Many people also don't believe in absolutist morality. This is fact.

I also said that your morality can be ignored. The universe doesn't care that Frank Trollman thinks fictional werewolves doing it with wolves constitutes dogrape.

In fact, I keep telling people to leave you alone in your own little bubble because you're not gonna change your mind.

You're free to make your morality "my way or the highway", but the rest of the universe is free to ignore you.

Unless you start shooting people to enforce your will. Which brings me to...

-----

Thirdly:

"My way or the highway" is dangerous. Especially when you start using force to impose your morality on others. That's what you call "tyranny" in most quarters.

Follow what the Great Mongo says or you will be shot.

-----

(On a more light-hearted note anyone wanna bet Frank will harumph and put me on his ignore list - again - after this post? )

[Molochio]

Moloch,

If you call dogrape a "passion" one more time you go on ignore.

pas·sion[pash-uhn]
- noun
1. any very strong emotion
2. sexual desire


@Orion: I can not be held accountable for your unreasonable dislike of any formal word being used correctly in the English language.

You may put me on ignore for this but if you look at this scenario closely, you will see that I have done nothing offensive unto/towards you and avoiding whatever personal emotional problems you have with correct word usage only serves to worsen them in the future.

Some people have "sexual desire" for a dog.
If you are to participate in this thread, you must first come to terms with that quintessential fact.

[Zinegata]

Molochio, let me be blunt:

Your argument is incomprehensible, and you have a disturbing fascination for real bestiality.

In a thread that is ultimately talking about what constitutes proper morality.

That "dogrape" triggered this discussion is frankly secondary. Especially when you consider that this is just a fictional representation.

So, why the fascination?

[Orion]

I'd certainly be tempted, Zine, because this is crazy talk. How are you going to back up your assertion that humans "must not" (morally shouldn't) hold other creatures to our moral standards? By asserting it as an axiom? That makes you no better than Frank, who insists that dogrape is wrong, as an axiom.

Look, you could make arguments that some creatures are so different from us that forcing them to live by our morals toward each other would be impossible and unproductive. Attempts would fail and have negative results. That would be a solid argument for limiting the scope of our interventionism.

You could also make an argument that some behaviors are ethical for elves but not for humans, or whatever. But you have to make an actual argument. If an alien's abilities and sensory faculties were very different from ours, it might be okay to do to them what it's not okay to do to a human. But the simple fact that some aliens do something doesn't make it right.

Actually, earth animals are a perfect example of this. We *do* hold animals to human moral standards--we kill animals who attack humans, no matter what reason they had for doing so, we don't let them steal our property, etc. We just don't worry about hat they do to each other because they generally have to, and we can't stop them.

[Zinegata]

I'd certainly be tempted, Zine, because this is crazy talk. How are you going to back up your assertion that humans "must not" (morally shouldn't) hold other creatures to our moral standards? By asserting it as an axiom? That makes you no better than Frank, who insists that dogrape is wrong, as an axiom.

I didn't actually mean for it to be an absolute. It's more of "try not to" as opposed to "must not". My mistake.

Look, you could make arguments that some creatures are so different from us that forcing them to live by our morals toward each other would be impossible and unproductive. Attempts would fail and have negative results. That would be a solid argument for limiting the scope of our interventionism.

That's pretty much what I'm trying to say.

You could also make an argument that some behaviors are ethical for elves but not for humans, or whatever. But you have to make an actual argument. If an alien's abilities and sensory faculties were very different from ours, it might be okay to do to them what it's not okay to do to a human. But the simple fact that some aliens do something doesn't make it right.

Again, I'm not saying "Just because you can do it, means you should".

However, it is extremely difficult to make these judgments if you do not belong to the same society/species.

Let's take the Black Widow example. To humans, it would seem repulsive for the female to kill the male after sex and to eat him.

But what if eating the male is actually part of the reproductive process for this alien species? What if the chemicals ingested after eating the male are essential to making sure the offspring survives?

In that case, I'm sure you'd agree with me that for this alien species, eating the male is actually a moral act - as it's the only way for the species to survive.

In contrast, what if "eating the male" is actually just a ritual holdover from their past? What if the offspring would survive regardless if the male was eaten? In this case I'm sure the "morality" of such a practice would come into question.

------

I show these examples, because it demonstrates that morality cannot be absolute. What works for humans may not work for other species. And since werewolves - as per WoD lore - can actually have offspring with wolves, it's not actually just clear-cut bestiality. Imagine if you grew up in an environment were your mom was an Int 3 wolf, and you have several full-blooded wolf brothers. Would it not affect your stances on morality?

-------

Finally, it's worth noting that even we humans have different moral standards.

For instance...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html

Afghan babies are fed pure opium in certain regions of that wartorn country. Which I'm sure many will find repulsive.

But the people who live there claim they have no choice. They live in squalor. They have no medicines or milk. Feeding a baby opium is the only way to keep them pacified.

And the parents who are doing this? They were fed opium when they were babies too.

So, are we to condemn this entire village as a bunch of drugged-out immoral folk, or do we need to take a step back and ask ourselves: Does my code have to apply to everyone regardless of circrumstance?

Or, more importantly, ask yourself: What if I had lived in a village like that all my life? What if I had lived in squalor and had never seen a doctor? Would I end up doing the exact same thing as these parents are doing to their kids?

[Molochio]

@Zinegata: My argument is simple but I will condense it further to help you comprehend.

If wolf/dog passion -> possibility of dog rape.
Wolf/dog passion -therefore- must possibly be dog rape.
(Modus Ponens)

The morality here is what is in question and confirms whether or not wolf/dog is being raped or is a willing participant.

I did not start the "WOLF/DOG RAPE" thread and have no particular fascination with bestiality.
Your poorly constructed Ad Hominem Attack is dismissed.

My fascination rests in logic and deliberation.
I am here to offer the purity of unbiased reasoning and clear thought.
As a logical thinker and only in that capacity.

[Zinegata]

@Zinegata: My argument is simple but I will condense it further to help you comprehend.

If wolf/dog passion -> possibility of dog rape.
Wolf/dog passion -therefore- must possibly be dog rape.
(Modus Ponens)

See, this is where you lost me.

When you say "wolf", do you actually mean werewolf?

Because if you're talking about just plain wolves and dogs doing it then you're really, really far from the topic now.

[Molochio]

@Zinegata: My argument is simple but I will condense it further to help you comprehend.

If wolf/dog passion -> possibility of dog rape.
Wolf/dog passion -therefore- must possibly be dog rape.
(Modus Ponens)

See, this is where you lost me.

When you say "wolf", do you actually mean werewolf?

Because if you're talking about just plain wolves and dogs doing it then you're really, really far from the topic now.

You seem to be very confused and I would like to do all that I can to help you.

"As we all know, in Werewolf: The Apocalypse, the Garou eat human flesh, routinely engage in the violent murder of human beings, and have sex with both humans and wolves that spread diseases between them."

When I say "wolf" it applies to both werewolves AND the more mundane wolves
that they sometimes find sexual gratification in.

[Zinegata]

When I say "wolf" it applies to both werewolves AND the more mundane wolves
that they sometimes find sexual gratification in.

Okay, now you're making sense. Next time just say it out loud instead of copy-pasting the cryptic title.

To answer your question: I don't know. Ask the wolves.

We know that animals display mating behavior, and that they can also reject advances of possible mates. But we don't really know if they even have the equivalent of morality, much less understand the concept of a sex crime.

------

OTOH, a werewolf may know - given that some of their relatives are wolves.

That being said, if what you're saying is that "it's possible for a werewolf to go out with the intent of raping poor innocent wolves", then yeah, that's possible.

In fact, this whole mess started probably because Frank met at least one twisted individual who wanted to live this sort of fantasy and it's still giving him nightmares (Moral of the story: Avoid WoD players even if some of them are really cute).

But "possible" is not the same as "applies to each and every case".

[Molochio]

Interesting story in the history of Frank.

It seems to never fail. In almost every gaming circle in every land there is at least one game where the DM uses a manufactured reality to carry out and indulge in various perverse rape fetishes.

[Zinegata]

Interesting story in the history of Frank.

It seems to never fail. In almost every gaming circle in every land there is at least one game where the DM uses a manufactured reality to carry out and indulge in various perverse rape fetishes.

Actually, I'm not sure if that actually did happen to Frank. Hence "probably", though I may have been a bit unclear in the last post (damn fingers).

Still, if WoD is involved, chances are there will be weirdos with fetishes at the table that will cause you to have a lot of violent rages down the line.

What surprises me though, is that while there's a lot of rage directed at WoD, I almost never hear people in the Den raging about FATAL.

[Starmaker]

But again: Do you deny that a fictional society of werewolves - some of whom have Int 3 wolves as Moms and Dads - will probably have different sexual mores and societal norms?

So what? There are real societies (no examples) where child marriage is practiced, with children born to 12 yr old girls. The children then proceed to grow up and marry girls, or proceed not to grow up and marry men. The fact that people are not persecuted for rape doesn't make it non-rape, it just means the society in question is horrible.

[Username17]

I never said your morality was invalid. So let's drop this "normative" horshit.

I said that it's not universal. I don't believe in "my way or the highway" morality. Many people also don't believe in absolutist morality. This is fact.

Uh.... you need to read more. What you are espousing is exactly normative moral relativism. It's an incoherent position.

• People believe different stuff.
• Therefore one person's beliefs are no more right than the next person's.
• Therefore on person not tolerating another person's beliefs is wrong.

That's your actual argument. You just made it again. It's called "Normative Moral Relativism". That's its actual name. And it is wrong on every level. Each part of it fails to mesh with the part that comes after it. Every statement is contradictory with every other statement in the deluge.

Just because two people believe something to be true doesn't mean that they are both right. One of them could be wrong and the other could be right. They could both be wrong. Both ideas could have fuzzy truth values between zero and one. But if two ideas are incompatible, the one thing you know to be true without even checking those things against reality is that they can't both be true. That's what incompatible means.

Secondly, a lot of people believing something doesn't mean it's true. Believing isn't knowing. And the universe is not democratic as regards the results of real actions.

And thirdly, the statement that imposing your moral values on others is wrong is inherently contradictory. The statement itself is imposing your moral values on others and is thus wrong under its own definitions. Solipsistic ethical frameworks can persuade you to ignore other people telling you what to do, but by definition they cannot make coherent argument that other people should stop doing that (or that they should or should not do anything for that matter).

Frank, who insists that dogrape is wrong, as an axiom.

Uh no. The wrongness of dog rape is totally derived.

First of all, I am not particularly interested in any ethical framework that cannot figure out how to condemn murder, rape, and child molestation. If you can't do at least that, your ethical framework is basically evil and unworthy of consideration. While we're at it, we can safely discount any ethical framework that suggests that you should destroy the planet or ethnically cleanse the Jews.

So we ask ourselves: why is child molestation wrong? Not the really gross question of "Is child molestation wrong?" but the simple structural question: "What is it about child molestation that is wrong that makes it different from other sexual activity that might be gross, but not wrong?"

A lot of people even in this thread offered poorly considered answers like "Because it violates the child's rights" or "Because they aren't biologically capable of bearing offspring" or "Because it damages the child's development." These answers are inadequate. Children have less rights than adults. They even have less rights than older children. You can take them places they don't want to go, force them to eat food they don't want to eat, and put them to work doing things they don't want to do for compensation they don't regard as adequate. Even a casual visceral check of various pedobear activities shows us that having sex with children who have more rights is also more accepted. Age of consent varies by location because the line between willing sexual partner and child molestation is a sorite lemma.

The biological breeding capability, while it has been brought up several times, is so laughable that it does not deserve further inspection, so I'll just leave that here.

And now let's consider the "damaging the development" hypothesis. What would that mean if that were the actual criteria? For starters, it would mean that raping children in their sleep was OK if they didn't wake up. For seconds, it would mean that raping terminally ill children would always be acceptable because they would never grow up to be adults with rights anyway. I don't think that I have to belabor that point very hard or very long: the results of such an assumption are repellent, so the assumption is inadequate.

So in the end what we are left with is that having sex with partners who don't have rights is wrong. Not because you are violating their rights, but because they don't have any. The unequal partnership is itself the problem, not any specific or potential effect on the less equal partner. And this is a good and adequate and generalizable stance. When applied in other areas, we note with pride how it condemns sex with all subhumans, whether those are human larva, demented humans, enslaved humans, retarded humans, or badgers. The same moral framework spits out the viscerally satisfying answer in all cases.

So having sex with dogs is wrong. It's wrong because they are subhuman and don't have rights. The dog is barely able to recognize its own name, lacks the motor skills to open doors, will be dead in a few years, and will never grow up to be a functional adult human - but you could say all of tat about a child with a deadly glycogen storage disease. And molesting either of them is wrong, to the same extent and for the same reason.

Dog rape == wrong is not an axiom, but it's not seriously challengeable in any moral framework I would consent to operate in.

-Username17

[Korwin]

Nice reasoning,
but it reads like dog rape is worse than child rape. So if you have the chance to stop either the rape of an dog or the rape of an child...
You should stop the rape of the dog?

Cant agree with that.

[Murtak]

I don't think that I have to belabor that point very hard or very long: the results of such an assumption are repellent, so the assumption is inadequate.

While I agree with your conclusion, the way you arrive at it seems wrong. Your whole argument can literally be summarized as "It feels wrong to me, therefore it is". Or, in your own words "Dog rape == wrong is not an axiom, but it's not seriously challengeable in any moral framework I would consent to operate in.". I totally agree with you by the way, but this is not a logically derived argument.

Nice reasoning, but it reads like dog rape is worse than child rape.

And molesting either of them is wrong, to the same extent and for the same reason.

You can not possibly misread this sentence. I have to conclude that you are either too dumb to understand simple sentences or, and this is more likely, that you are deliberately trolling.

[Zinegata]

Uh.... you need to read more. What you are espousing is exactly normative moral relativism. It's an incoherent position.

• People believe different stuff.
• Therefore one person's beliefs are no more right than the next person's.
• Therefore on person not tolerating another person's beliefs is wrong.

Did I ever say that you should tolerate all beliefs?

No, I did not. I just said it's fucking retarded to apply human morality to WEREWOLVES.

Werewolves are NOT the same as people. Not when some of them have moms, dads, and siblings who are seriously Int 3 wolves.

And before you start screaming "they should stop this!", the fact is they don't have a choice. It's not a werewolf's fault that he was born with a wolf brother. That's the fault of their parents. Much like how Greeks nowadays have to live with the fact that their ancestors did, in fact, practice pedophilia.

Morality is ultimately relative. It will depend on the society/race. Humanity has chosen to ban pedophilia... because we KNOW it leads to bad things for kids. We ban bestiality, not because we care for animals (we routinely slaughter millions of them for food), but because it squicks people out. Not to mention that it may increase the chance of diseases being transmitted to humans from animals.

But again, we're talking about WEREWOLVES here. Who can, in fact, mate and produce offspring with wolves. It's not up to humans to decide what werewolves morals ought to be, ESPECIALLY when the supposed "victims" are animals that we routinely slaughter as PEST CONTROL.

Hell, this isn't even a real race we're talking about. It's a fictional race. If it really squicks you out, don't read the game!

Ultimately, it's up to each individual to choose where they stand in this issue. I find it squicky, but to me it's fucking World of Darkness. I expect squick.

You're free to rage all you want.

Either way, the universe doesn't bloody care. And people should seriously stop bringing this up time and time again because it will never get resolved.

Edit: Fuck it, I'm joining Carthaz in the "Thank God it's just in this one thread" corner.

[Kaelik]

First of all, I am not particularly interested in any ethical framework that cannot figure out how to condemn murder, rape, and child molestation. If you can't do at least that, your ethical framework is basically evil and unworthy of consideration. While we're at it, we can safely discount any ethical framework that suggests that you should destroy the planet or ethnically cleanse the Jews.

You also aren't interested in any ethical framework that doesn't condemn dog sex. We know what your personal preferences are. We know what you will consent to. But you have failed yet again to provide any reason for people to actually believe that your moral axioms are true.

In addition, I already presented a moral system that condemns all those things that you claim need to be condemned, but since it doesn't condemn dog sex, you rejected it out of hand.

[Starmaker]

Werewolves are NOT the same as people. Not when some of them have moms, dads, and siblings who are seriously Int 3 wolves.

Do children born of rape get a free pass on raping others when they grow up?

And before you start screaming "they should stop this!", the fact is they don't have a choice. It's not a werewolf's fault that he was born with a wolf brother. That's the fault of their parents. Much like how Greeks nowadays have to live with the fact that their ancestors did, in fact, practice pedophilia.

(1) How come modern Greeks aren't allowed to practice pedophilia on the basis that their ancestors did it?
(2) Do you really see no fault with your argument?

We ban bestiality, not because we care for animals (we routinely slaughter millions of them for food), but because it squicks people out.

We ban bestiality because allowing abuse of sentients with limited rights makes for a worse society. This is why we kill sheep for food (mm, delicious) but ban setting cats on fire for the purpose of filming a youtube video.

It's not up to humans to decide what werewolves morals ought to be

Is it up to other people to decide what Josef Fritzl ought to be doing with his family? Y/N?

Hell, this isn't even a real race we're talking about. It's a fictional race. If it really squicks you out, don't read the game!

If one were to compile a recolor of Mein Kampf, would it be an okay book?