Wolf/Dog Rape

[Orion]

The "damage the development" hypothesis works fine if you aren't stupid about it. Why is it wrong to rape people in their sleep?

--you might injure them
--they might wake up
--someone might catch you doing it
--they might find out later
--if people knew that getting raped in their sleep was something that happens, they would be afraid of that while awake, and fear is a kind of suffering

Seriously, the straightforward argument form consequences works fine. I can't imagine anything other than an extreme sci-fi scenario where you could rape someone and be sure no one would ever know it happened. But then rule utilitarianism comes in and says "don't look for th exception, just don't do it."

Now we get to the issue of who is protected. The "damage the development" argument clearly protects human children of ordinary ability and potential. It also clearly needs to be extended. But, how far? Let's start by looking at the case of humans with debilitating diseases or brain damage. Why is it wrong to rape them?

--moral hazard: if you could freely rape people just by having them declared incompetent, the potential corruption would be enormous
--fuzzy boundaries: it's hard to tell exactly what someone can understand or might develop; play it safe.
--law: you need to have enforceable laws against rape, and they should have as few loopholes as possible. Making them protect all humans is a reasonable answer.
--possibility of suffering: unless the person is actually in a coma, you do run the risk of that rape being, you know, a negative experience for them.
--communal ownership. Coma patients and the like can basically be owned, but they're not fully owned by one person. Basically everyone has friends and family who, if they were in a coma and unlikely to recover, would object to their being raped. So instead of leaving that decision to their power of attorney, we say you can't do it.

There you go. Perfectly sound argument for forbidding the molestation of human children and dying or handicapped humans as well. But what about dogs?

--no moral hazard, as you can't get someone declared "an animal".
--no confusion, you can't mistake a real person for a dog
--no unwarranted suffering: you can permissibly do far worse to a dog than rape it

There's no pressing reason to extend rape protection to nonhuman animals.

[Zinegata]

Since Starmaker apparently can't read, let me more blunt:

I'm out of this stupid thread. Go harhar all you want.

[Molochio]

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.

@Murtak: You are correct in your observation that the reasoning which leads Frank to his conclusion is flawed.

His logic fails with the fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief.

"Dog rape == wrong is not an axiom, but it's not seriously challengeable in any moral framework I would consent to operate in."
Reads as:
P is true because if people did not accept P as true there would be negative consequences for our society.
This is a fallacy because the consequences of a belief have no bearing upon whether said belief is true or false.


Korwin's thoughts were similar to one of my earlier ones in that
I believe that we can all agree that rape is bad. Yes?
It ruins lives and causes permanent psychological damage.
This is problematic because there exists a notable desire to conduct rape.
This desire is prevalent among all social classes and races.
While I certainly have no desire to see an animal's sexual liberties violated, once we have concluded that men, werewolves, ect, 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.
Likewise it is preferable to that of a child.

[mean_liar]

CANCER

[Daiba]

P is true because if people did not accept P as true there would be negative consequences for our society.

?? Seems more like: "Rule P should exist because without it there would be negative consequences for our society." Y'know, like "Murder should be taboo/illegal, because without that there would be negative consequences for our society."

We're talking about laying out behavioral rules here, not whether 1+1=2. The only truth necessary is that societies where the rules allow you to sexually molest individuals with lower standing than you demonstrably suck. I wouldn't want to live in ancient Greece. Hell, I wouldn't want to live in the 1950s.

[Username17]

His logic fails with the fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief.

This is not a fallacy if you have a consquentialist view of morality, which I do. Indeed, an assessment of the results of a belief is the only rational way to decide whether a belief is good or not.

-Username17

[Molochio]

@Daiba: P = Dog rape is wrong as a quintessential truth. That is not an argument which has been logically resolved here.

You can not replace P with murder because that is not debatable.
There are no reasonable grounds upon which an argument for freedom to murder may stand. The very notion is illogical.

The thing in question is molestation of wolf/dog.
Not individuals of lower societal standing, but mundane animals.
If mundane animals are being used by someone in your province or city for carnal pleasure, you probably are not aware of it, and your society is functional in some fashion you may enjoy nonetheless.

@Frank: Well said.
I can not easily disprove the notion of your "consquentialist view of morality" without being led on an elaborate red herring. That the formula of your reasoning fits a recognizable flaw in logic is all I offer.
Whether or not the ends defines the deed is a separate argument.

[sabs]

This is the most ludicrous argument I've seen on here in a while.

I still fail to see why werewolves mating with real wolves is rape, unless they're doing it in Cronos form.

In Lupus form, they're wolves too.
Heck, in the original mythology, werewolves are wolves that gained the ability to change into human form.

One could argue that mating with humans is equaly wrong, as Werewolves tend to be more mature/intelligent than their human counter parts.

And 3rdly it's a WoD game. Dogfucking is really low on the list of objectionable things that your character might do on a daily basis.

[Korwin]

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.

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.

I think it was this sentence where I got the impression that under Franks theorem fucking Animals would be worse than human children (Because Animals have fewer rights than children).

Rereading it, I'm still not shure about it.

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.

Not the case for children, while they have fewer rights than adults, they do have some.

So I still dont get how Frank gets from my quoted parts to Murtaks quoted parts.
Children are not animals they have (at least) more rights than Animals (show me one modern country where you can kill and eat children).

If we follow (as I first thought Frank was doing) the formular, fewer rights means more moral wrong, then fucking animals is worse than fucking children.
If we dont follow this formula I dont see Frank's point at all.

He could mean something like,
the fucked person/animal dont have certain right --> then its moraly wrong to fuck them.
It doesnt make a difference if an animal has fewer rights than an children because both are under an certain threshold of rights. have fewer rights than an adult.

Disclaimer:
Not native speaker, so maybe I'm to dumb to read simple sentences...

[Username17]

I still fail to see why werewolves mating with real wolves is rape, unless they're doing it in Cronos form.

In Lupus form, they're wolves too.
Heck, in the original mythology, werewolves are wolves that gained the ability to change into human form.

One could argue that mating with humans is equaly wrong, as Werewolves tend to be more mature/intelligent than their human counter parts.

What?

Rape has zero percent to do with what species you are and one hundred percent to do with the power disparity between the rapist and the rapee.

If you have sex with someone who lacks mental competence because they are passed out drunk, that's rape. Not because they are a different species, but because you can think and they cannot.

If you have human intelligence, you have exactly that mental inequality with the vast majority of animals. Which means that if you were to have sex with them, it would be rape.

Whether sex is wrong has very little to do with superficial body differences. People who dress up in fur suits are weird, but what they do isn't rape. People who actually fuck actual animals - that's rape.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Heck, in the original mythology, werewolves are wolves that gained the ability to change into human form.

Citation please.

[sabs]

Werewolf the Apocalypse
Main book, (oWoD I don't know what buggery is in nWoD)

There's also an alternate in the Bastet Source Book.

Garou, Bastet, etc all started as animals who were given the ability to change into human form by Gaia.

[Zinegata]

I'll dip in one last time before sabs gets dogpiled. Because it seems rather incredibly clear that a lot of people commenting on the subject... haven't even read how WoD werewolves actually work.

From the WW Wiki (quoted by Frank in this thread where this whole quagmire started: http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51642& ... c&start=75 ):

The Garou
The Garou (werewolves) believe themselves to have been created by Gaia as her defense against the Wyrm and Weaver. They are the ultimate predators in the World of Darkness. They revere the Wyld but are also steeped in millennia old traditions. They are fighting to survive in the modern world, but cling to the old ways. Adding to their troubles is the fact that only one in ten offspring of a Garou turns out to be Garou themselves. Worse still, their kin, the wolves, have been nearly hunted to extinction, leaving them with very few wolf mates. Thus they have had to make do with humans, thinning the primal instincts of the Garou so that a Homid Garou may never have seen a forest until after his First Change. There is one way to guarantee Garou offspring and this is to mate with another Garou. However, due to an ancient curse laid on the Garou, any offspring produced this way are deformed and sterile. Thus they need to take their chances with humans and wolves to continue the line.

Decide for your own what morality applies. I'm out.

Because THIS THREAD IS CANCER.

[Molochio]

EDIT : Never mind, I'm not going to have a debate about moral subjectivity in a goddamn dogrape thread.

This is not an uncommon sentiment.

[Starmaker]

WoD animals are not cheesy cartoony talking anumal sidekicks. They are regular earth animals. If the lycanthropes were actually created from animals (as sabs states), then it's not only the ability to turn into humans (two-pager, boob alert) that was granted to them but also human intelligence.

Once they have human intelligence, dogfucking becomes rape.

Now, WoD goes further than that. The sick fucks who wrote it use the lesser of two evils principle to design supernatural reproduction in a way that justifies rape as a means to save the world. Because the world always needs more lycanthropes, and the only way to ensure that is to rape everything that moves.

This is what is so insulting and disgusting. We know supernaturals do morally reprehensible things, and people have different ideas about what should and what should not go into a roleplaying game. I mean, we have mass murder and books made of human skin in D&D. Rape has been suggested as character background for half-orcs (note how Tome shoots this retarded meme down). So I don’t see a problem with including rape in a list of sick fuckery of equal or greater severity that some supernaturals do just because they're sick fucks. If that had been the case, this thread wouldn’t have existed.

I don't know shit about WoD vampires, but traditional vampires need human blood to survive. Now, assault and battery is a crime. So, as a newly made vampire, you could (1) commit suicide out of disgust, (2) consume organic blood, (3) patrol streets at night, hunt criminals and help yourself to their necks. Note how there's a range of choices. As a playable good utilitarian vampire, you may conclude that the service you are doing to the community (by fighting supernatural threats) outweighs the harm you're doing by subsisting on blood intended for sick people (also, you might loot enemies and donate proceeds to the hospital to be used as reward for blood donors). And your DM might mess with you from time to time and set it up so that you might really want to (but not absolutely need to) suck an innocent passerby dry on your way to the supernatural terrorists' hideout.

WoD lycanthropes don't have a choice. It's "rape every female* or the world goes kablooey".
*and ladies, while biology actually allows you to only have willing (human) partners, rape is still preferred.

> Thus they have had to make do with humans, thinning the primal instincts of the Garou so that a Homid Garou may never have seen a forest until after his First Change.

Also this. So you grow up as a human and then find out you need to rape humans and dogs 24/7 to save the world. WAT.

[Roy]

...and I wake up to this.

God damn it, Den. Really?

Plus Fucking One.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Roy, there had been no posts in this thread for almost two weeks. Why the fuck would you bump it?

[tzor]

Roy, apparently, cannot let a sleeping (raped) dog lie.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Roy, apparently, cannot let a sleeping (raped) dog lie.

I feel that, in some way, this statement perfectly sums up the Den.

[Roy]

Actually, I didn't notice the time. It was close to the top of the list though. >.>

[Molochio]

Roy, there had been no posts in this thread for almost two weeks. Why the fuck would you bump it?

Some stains can not be washed away.