Create account

replied 2808d
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
2 / 288 1
replied 2808d
I mean, you mentioned before that you have a wife and kids. Do i really need to fill in the blanks?
replied 2808d
I mean, unless your asexual, you are a pervert. I envy asexuals, they have the moral high ground to say they don't think perversely about anyone.
replied 2808d
"I mean, unless your asexual, you are a pervert" - V, maybe it's time for you to find a reliable dictionary ;)
replied 2801d
Most parents are perverts apparently:P
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2808d
Sexual desires are a biological mean to ensure repreduction of living species. Everybody knows that.
replied 2808d
Then please stop using condoms and tell the girl to stop putting hormone pills or anything else into her body to prevent getting pregnant. I see perverted sex addicts all around me.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2808d
Don't be so angry.
1
replied 2807d
I do not have any anger but how can I not be sad in this world of liars? I am disappointed & I use my energy to promote the solution to these issues: bitcoin & veganism & shamanism
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
I eat animals with no shame, because animals would eat me with no shame if they were given the opportunity.
1
replied 2807d
Its not about shame its about enlightment. You are missing the positive effects on your physical and mental health which you can not realize with eating "normal" without trying vegan.
1
1,000
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
I was vegan all my childhood. I never noticed any difference since I started eating meat over my physical and mental health.
replied 2807d
You can also smoke tobacco for many years without getting lung problems.
5
2,000
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
Yeah well the difference is that my body is meant to process meat in certain quantity.
3
replied 2807d
You can believe whatever you want or maybe check out "The China Study" and save yourself from future cancer and heart disease.
1
1,000
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
If meat doesn't give me cancer, G5 network will.
2
567
replied 2807d
Thats actually so true. The radiation is a huge problem. My father died from #cancer partially by wifi radiation. Many studies prove radiation causes illness. Julian Assange is next.
1
546
replied 2807d
There are different kinds of radiation. You can get cancer or acute radiation sickness from high doses of ionizing radiation. Wi-Fi, not so much.
replied 2801d
Unless you get the Ionizing Radiation Kind of Wi-Fi - The absolute best.

There were some people working in an old radar station, they got wifi, then later the got cancer:P
replied 2801d
Probably not from the Wi-Fi though...
replied 2801d
You never know! They installed Wi-Fi in a large retirement home, and several of the old people there died the next months. Same with hospitals that got Wi-Fi people died there.
replied 2801d
I pretty much know. This would have been widely known if it was proven. Old people in retirement homes occasionally dying is normal.
replied 2801d
I just think that it is funny to see people getting some new experience, diet, vitamin, tech, experience some change in health, and then link the together without question or testing.
replied 2801d
So I should say right now that I am joking about the old peoples homes and hospitals, there is no data that I have seen suggesting that there is any link between mortality and Wi-Fi.
replied 2801d
But this one old person was just 98 years young, and it was just a couple months between the wifi coming on and the person dying.
replied 2807d
People smoke regardless of the risks. The same is true of eating meat. Even if the cherrypicked studies were true that meat was bad for you. People would still do it.
2
1,000
replied 2807d
Some people smoke some cigarettes but most have stopped smoking. Watch back 50 years when smoking was still cool. Same thing happens to meat & milk. #veganism is growing exponentially.
3
1,000
replied 2807d
Veganism is a cult and it's bad for the planet.
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2806d
I'm fine with vegans - more meat for me!
2
1,000
replied 2801d
Hey! Lay of the meat, don't eat it. I want it for myself:P
replied 2807d
The mainstream media says the same about #bitcoin because they want to sell banking products. They also spread false information about #veganism because they want to sell animals.
1
replied 2807d
Vegans and their endless rants are the reason why I have no wish to become one. I also love good quality beef, lamb, wild bore and venison and so on. Yummy stuff. Damn, I am hungry now
1
anarchovegan
replied 2791d
I agree. That's why I hate math.
Teachers giving the lectures about the importance of math and blah blah blah. Well let me tell you. Math is dumb. I mean, look at these teachers.
replied 2791d
I guess severe lack of protein and other good stuff we get from meat causes you come up with something as idiotic as this. Go have a steak. Grass feed, free range - Wagyu beef. Yummy
anarchovegan
replied 2791d
I guess severe excess of protein causes you to be blind to the idiocy of the math argument is the same argument you made about vegans.
anarchovegan
replied 2801d
That's an understandable reaction, especially with how poorly many vegans communicate the message of veganism.
anarchovegan
replied 2791d
The Militant Vegan Agenda
https://memo.cash/post/bde170eb80d3588b939699dc862873fc5f4b70061e3c95ea3d02faae0eba0f82
anarchovegan
replied 2801d
I've been looking at this myself.
Veganism: reduce suffering as much as possible.
Militant veganism: STOP HURTING THE ANIMALS AT ANY COST.
I consider militant veganism a cult.
Mons7er
replied 2807d
Yes, but you notice the adverse effects of smoking quickly. Dryness and irritation, etc.
replied 2807d
Except there is nothing bad about eating meat. It is mostly a myth supported by cherry picked data.
replied 2801d
If people think that eating meat is bad for them, then they will fee bad about eating meat. Which makes them eat more meat to fill that dark hole they have in their soul. (Joking).
1
666
replied 2801d
Eating meat is not bad for you. This smells like google trolls.
replied 2801d
Google Troll Meat is pretty healthy though.
replied 2807d
Some animals might eat you. Others, probably not. But that's beside the point. People have moral agency and are (ideally) civilized/non-aggressive. Animals don't have these qualities.
replied 2807d
A cow licked me once. Now my hair sticks up.
1
replied 2807d
Pham, you should take a trip to Sub Sahara Africa. Moral agency. LOL. Lets talk when you get back. Hold on, are they even humans? Lets see what DNA says
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
Thus, there is no moral obligations toward them.
replied 2807d
You may of course use force defensively against individual animals that attack you, but not against all the animals that leave you alone.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
I will not use force against animals that leave me alone unless it is to satisfy my hunger.
replied 2806d
You don't need to eat animals to satisfy your hunger. You might need to satisfy a habit, perhaps, but habits can and should be changed when it becomes known that they are destructive.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Eating plants also destroys them so the argument don't really stand. Humans are meant to eat meat just as the same wolves are meant doing so.
1
replied 2806d
Plants are not sentient. What do you mean by "meant"?
replied 2801d
Not that we know of now, but that can change in the future, plats may be sentient (I do not think so personally) but I am open for the possibility.
replied 2801d
Sure, but we can only work within known science. All sorts of things that we haven't figured out yet can potentially be true, but taking such unknowns into account would be irrational.
replied 2801d
We need to take the fact that we do not know into account at least. Just as it was not uncommon to view animals as non-sentient for sure in the past. We have no way of actually ->
replied 2801d
-> measuring sentience, but we infer the likelihood from comparing the biology of humans and animals. But yeah, we have no clue about how consciousness works.
replied 2801d
We can acknowledge the fact that we don't know everything, but we can't act based on things we don't know. Science or even doing anything rational would be impossible under such logic.
replied 2801d
Science is a method that works great in some fields of life, but what gets funded, prioritized and is used as argumentation in human affairs are also subject to politics and economics.
replied 2801d
Science isn't perfect, I agree.
replied 2801d
The great thing with science (Scientific Method) over time is that it can only get better results over time, the special part is that it updates and discards mistakes systematically.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
I mean biologically aligned. I am a biological machine that can process meat to survive, just as wolves.
replied 2806d
You can, sort of, but you'll survive longer on plants.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
I agree but not because of the meat itself but because of all the chemical crap they put in it.
replied 2806d
No, it's the meat itself too.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Well this is yet to be proven which would be very a hard thing to. Either positively and negatively.
replied 2805d
replied 2805d
I try not to believe everything Google says. After all, it is a marketing company.
2
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2805d
Yeah and they are recycling themselves in the propaganda businesses.
1
555
1DYD9Y8EomqBapvM
replied 2805d
The removed "Don't be Evil" and leaked horryfying "Google Ledger". Just a bunch of globalists
replied 2805d
Dr. Greger doesn't work for Google. He has his own project at nutritionfacts.org.
replied 2805d
I have no idea who he works for. The point is that is a google logo on the video right?
replied 2805d
Who cares what logo there is? The scientific data on nutrition and disease in the presentation is the point. Are you rejecting it because you don't like Google?
replied 2805d
You do know that google's main business is stealing your private data and selling at auction right?
2
3,600
replied 2805d
I don't give a fuck about Google in this context. Google is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The topic is health, nutrition, plant based foods, veganism.
replied 2805d
I just don't trust google.
replied 2801d
You should hear their new motto: Don't distrust us (we are not evil).
replied 2801d
Actually, google is evil. As a Search Engine Optimization expert, I know that for FACT.
Unknown
replied 2801d
They are the good kind of evil though.
Unknown
replied 2801d
google is part of the deep state.
anarchovegan
replied 2807d
Are you measured by what you do with those in power, or those who are weak?
How we treat animals reflects on how we treat humans. Non-human animal abuse is the start of cannibalism.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
I treat animals the same way they would treat me. It's as simple as that.
3
Mons7er
replied 2807d
Many people forego eating animals because eating them supports the systems they abuse them in completely unnecessary ways. Animals would NOT abuse you. They may kill you and eat you...
1
replied 2807d
Sorry, but my cat abuses me every waking day.
3
replied 2807d
if you have cats, you deserve the abuse. #Fact: Only reason you are still alive is because cat(s) are to small. Yes, this is the only reason why your cat hasn't killed you by now.
replied 2801d
My cat would be fine with just beating me into submission over and over again.
replied 2801d
Seek help. You need it.
1
replied 2801d
I absolutely would in that situation, a poacher or something like that.
Mons7er
replied 2807d
Hahaha!

I am sure your cats abuse is almost as bad as the farms where we raise animals for slaughter.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2807d
Have you ever visited a farm? Most of them treat their animals very decently.
replied 2807d
Unless those farms are run by moslems. They rape their animals. #PoorGoats
1
546
replied 2801d
Compare: halal slaughter with captive bolt pistol on a video search. I know which one I would prefer.
replied 2807d
Then don't be a cheap fuck, buy free range & grass feed meat. Cost more but it also tastes better and wont give you cancer. Cancer is caused by injected growth hormones to cheap meat
Mons7er
replied 2806d
Gozira, so if I cannot afford the much more expensive meat, it's okay if I go without eating the meat that is unethically and abusively farmed?
replied 2806d
Yes
Mons7er
replied 2806d
So if I am vegan because I cannot afford to eat quality, ethically sourced, meat, than you support me?
replied 2806d
Support you how? Do you want a medal for eating grass? Go eat what ever you want. Don't tell me what to eat. If you force that shit on children and pets, you are a sick sadist.
replied 2801d
I like that no matter what I eat, you will not object;)
anarchovegan
replied 2801d
Interesting response.
Thank you for the reply.
replied 2808d
In an age where we need people of quality over quantity, sex does more bad than good. Especially when we have the means to do without it.
replied 2808d
Yes, and paired with an inevitable lack of self control are the source of rape, pedophilia, fetishes etc. in the world.
replied 2808d
"paired with an inevitable lack of self control" -> LGBTQ and the rest of the perverts.
1
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2808d
You are terribly misguided. “Paired with an inevitable lack of self control” has nothing to do with being LGBTQ.
Plenty of straight people are perverts & lack self control.
3
replied 2808d
What is so interesting about others having sex? Dont we have enough real issues to talk about & pay attention to? Sex topics are being used to preoccupy the population with nonsense.
1
replied 2808d
Exactly right, and not only is it used to distract people from real issues (sport also), it is also used to destroy morality to make money out of it also at the same time.
replied 2808d
Sex is never immoral if it happens with consent it is a positive behaviour. Eating animals is immoral because it involves pain, suffering and death. Lets talk about #veganism.
replied 2808d
We have to eat animals, other animals eat us when we die, this is a natural cycle. Problem is with over consumption, problem is when people torture animals, when they have shit life.
replied 2807d
We don't have to eat animals. Whether it's natural or not is irrelevant (argument from nature fallacy). Check out Dr. Michael Greger's work:
2
564
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2807d
But their sooooo yummy! 🤤
1
replied 2805d
want to read his book.
replied 2805d
More stuff here: https://nutritionfacts.org/
1
556
replied 2805d
I will read it when time permits.
replied 2807d
I do not eat animals since 5 years, my health has improved incredibly. I believe it gives me peace & freedom. Animals eat animals but I am human. I see no reason to eat animals at all.
2
1,000
replied 2801d
I stopped eating meat and my health became terrible. But that was just because I became ill, not because I stopped eating animals, did not become better after eating animals again:P
replied 2805d
do you live in an area where there are a lot of vegans? I've traveled to places like that & it's easier to not eat meat (esp at great vegan restaurants).
replied 2805d
I always find a way to eat something #vegan in any restaurant. Salads, potatoes, rice. But i mostly eat from supermarkets as I mostly eat raw cereals/seeds/nuts & raw fruits/veggies.
2
replied 2805d
I like salads for a while but some of the more 'vegan hipster' foods are interesting & great tasting. love cereals/seeds/nuts & raw fruits/veggies.
replied 2804d
It is interesting how diet advice is not universal. My health would deteriorate on a vegan diet. I need a lot of meat to stop from losing weight.
replied 2802d
There are no magic nutrients in meat. Everything can be found in plants except some things that are really bad for you like cholesterol.
1
replied 2801d
It is far harder to get all the proper amino acids for a full protein from vegetables. It is easiest with beef. Also cholesterol is not always bad. I need lots of protein and fat.
2
555
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2801d
Balance is the most important thing for a diet. If you eat too clean your body has nothing to filter out; if you eat like shit then your body has more to filter out than it is capable
1
replied 2801d
"It's far harder" doesn't mean anything. Everything is hard before you've figured it out. Then it's easy. Cholesterol is always bad.
1
replied 2801d
It actually does mean something. When eating proteins you only actually get as much as whichever amino acid you get the least of. There is nothing wrong with eating meat.
1
replied 2801d
There are dozens of things wrong with it. We only do it because we are used to it. The only negative aspect of a vegan diet is the learning curve of a few months. Then it's all win.
replied 2801d
It is pompous to say we only eat meat because we are use to it. It is a very new thing for food to be shipped across the world fast enough to not spoil.
replied 2801d
Pompous or not, it's true. Shipping isn't that new, but it's here now. Going forward agric. will move indoors w 24h artificial light and blow today's technology away re efficiency.
replied 2801d
Saying the world should suddenly abandoned everything about its past because of very recent changes is plain wrong. Progress, yes. Abandoning the past, no.
replied 2801d
If customs are found to be bad they should stop. It's not going to happen all at once of course. Demand for animals will start falling. I predict +50% vegans in the West in 2050.
replied 2801d
Top soil erosion is s problem you likely have not heard of. Grassland for meatgeazing is environmentally friendly.
replied 2801d
I'm sure it's a problem, in some sense, but problems can be solved. Technology will advance agriculture to the point where soil is not needed. Decimating primeval rainforest =not cool.
replied 2801d
That that up with the government of those nations. It means absolutely nothing to the subject of how people elsewhere should eat. Cattle grazing is very efficient in some places.
replied 2801d
Consumers are responsible for the demand they create in the market. I don't trust government to fix this problem. Capitalism will fix it.
Unknown
replied 2801d
It is fixing it. They mostly grow sugar cane, and with selling that internationally make enough to import other goods. They also grow some produce and let cattle graze.
replied 2801d
@Pham, what is your agenda for promoting this diet?
replied 2801d
In no particular order: Health, animal welfare, economic efficiency, environment, technological progress, non-aggression, reason, science, humanism, civilization.
replied 2801d
Those are not real reasons. Most are myths.
2
555
replied 2801d
Seriously? For example, you don't think economic efficiency is important? Do you prefer paying more for food or less? You know animals are just a detour for plant protein, right?
replied 2801d
It is actually more efficient to have cows graze grassland so that we don't need to use more of the world dwindling topsoil supply. A vegan diet for the world would ensure starvation.
replied 2801d
Rainforests all over the world is being cut to create grazing areas. Livestock consume prodigious amounts of farmed plants very little of which ends up in your steak. Not efficient.
replied 2801d
That is a way to misinterpret that issue. The reality is very different, and far more complex then you make it seem. They have very little farmland in South America.
replied 2801d
That doesn't address anything I argued.
Unknown
replied 2801d
While it is easy to say it is bad the convert rainforest for agriculture,which it is,there are a lot of people and very little farm land, and it is expensive to import food.
replied 2801d
I don't know what all of those mean but I will be sure to look into it.
replied 2802d
Eckhart Tolle a spiritual teacher has publicly stated that eventually the body and mind will die.
replied 2801d
Obviously. But why speed up the process?
replied 2801d
Good point.
replied 2802d
On a long enough timeframe the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. https://www.zerohedge.com/
replied 2801d
I agree.
replied 2802d
hmm. oh yeah, I'm not trying to gain weight. would be tough on vegetables. & meat makes me feel too full. Nice to have every now and then or in small portions though.
replied 2805d
Hare Krishna cook awesome veggie food. They used to run a restaurant in my town. Good stuff. Vegan hipster can just fuck off.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2805d
Best vegetarian food is Indian food. There's a place in Indianapolis called Spice Nation that's all you can eat. I go whenever I'm in town.
1
replied 2805d
We don't have "all you can eat" places. At least I have never seen one. I have seen those in US. Food quality is shit, so I avoid. Quality over quantity keeps you healthy.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2805d
There's varying quality. I've found that restaurant quality/price ratio heavily depends on taxes and regulatory pressure. Also in bigger cities like Chicago there's restaurant cartels.
replied 2805d
vegan hipsters or their food? as people they can be a little pompous but the food they make is really good
replied 2808d
Yes we eat animals, problem with that is how we feed/grow and ultimately kill those animals. That is where immorality takes place, but consumers are not exposed to those immoralities.
replied 2807d
You will never be able to sanitize the killing of animals for food. All you can hope for is to keep the practice obscured for as long as possible. Eventually, people will find out.
replied 2808d
In fact, with LGBTQ making up only about 5% of the general American population you could argue there's far more perverts and people without control amongst heterosexuals than LGBTQ.
1
1,000
replied 2808d
its 2-3% population but 40% of child molesters, 55% HIV cases, 82% syphilis, 37% of anal cancer and only 20% of LGBTQ adults are STD free.
92% of adopted children are abused by LGBTQ
1
900
replied 2807d
That's a lot of stats, got anything to back any of it all up?
replied 2807d
Too many numbers is enough for you to say "I won't believe it"? LOL. Those are all gov collected stats. Go look them up, and while you are at it, check out #LGBTQ "family" violence
replied 2805d
Um no. I wasn't challenging you, I'm genuinely asking.
replied 2801d
https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv-aids/fact-sheets/25/81/hiv-and-gay-and-bisexual-men The HIV numbers may be a bit higher, at least with men.
replied 2801d
I appreciate this. I was more curious about 40% child molesters, 92% of adopted children abused by LGBTQ and 82% syphillus as those numbers seem outrageous, others not so much.
replied 2801d
The disease rate stats are accurate (actually a bit to low), transgender men/women have even higher disease stats: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/gender/transgender/index.html
1
10,000
replied 2801d
Cheers, thank you for the info! Very interesting!
replied 2801d
A side not to the child abuse in Lesbian/Homosexual adoptive households - it was often that the guardians gave access to the children to child molesters it counts the total abuse.
replied 2801d
The newest number I could find was 83% of Syphilis cases Bi/Homosexual men, https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
replied 2801d
The Child Molester stat depends on what you count as children, molestation and homosexual/bisexual, and if you consider sexual abuse of a boy as homosexual or not, also what number ->
replied 2801d
-> and criteria you use to select for what counts as Homosexual/Bi in in adults. Counting sexual relations with men or being exclusive with men, having had sex with women or not ect ->
replied 2801d
-> so if you count abuse of boys as bi/homosexual then you get high numbers as a fact that people that sexually abuse children may have gender preferences but their interest are not ->
replied 2801d
-> in adults, so men coupling up with other adult men (or women) to use as a way to get access to abusing children skews the stats. But the overall trend is that people that are ->
replied 2801d
-> sexually and/or romantically interested and functional with adults do not abuse children, gay, bi or straight.
replied 2801d
I do not have the relevant study comparing hetero married couples with adoptive lesbian/gay couples on hand, the numbers seemed pretty bad BUT compared to the abuse in institutions ->
replied 2801d
-> it was comparatively not bad, and the takeaway was that abuse of children not with their biological parents is very high and that while there may be some difference between ->
replied 2801d
-> on average hetero/lesbian/homosexual parents, the numbers are pretty high across the board and preferable compared to having the children in institutions instead of adoptive partent
replied 2801d
So it is not a lesbian/homosexual/Hetero thing, it is more "Not your biological children" thing. Marriage with biological children best case scenario on average statistically.
replied 2801d
The child abuse numbers are pretty high in general for institutions, lower for adoptive parents in general but still pretty high. Step parents about 100x more likely to abuse the child
replied 2808d
You clearly didn't exercise self control when you lusted after your wife. You certainly didn't exercise self control looking for a wife. You ARE a pervert.
replied 2808d
V, speak for yourself and for fuck sake, please, get a dictionary and figure out what the word "pervert" means.
replied 2806d
Well, are the gays and the lesbians and the panwhateversexuals wrong simply because they use sex for a purpose other than biological reproduction?
2
1,000
replied 2806d
I am going to recommend you for a medal. A gold medal in metal gymnastics and virtue signalling. BTW, you still have not told me why perverts should be not considered as mentally ill
replied 2806d
Probably because the people your calling perverts have done nothing wrong.
1
1,000
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Trans trying to force everyone to use gender neutral pronoun so they can live their fantasy world without having their feelings hurt by reality is VERY wrong.
1
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2806d
Ok your male correct?
I am only going to refer to you using female pronouns against your will from now on.
Yes ma’am.
Now you & your wife is are lesbians. Now your mentally ill.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Thank you for confirming how ridiculus these people are. When I refer to a person I refer to their chromosomes. I don't give a shit about how they feel about them.
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2806d
No ma’am. The presence of testosterone or estrogen in the body is what determines gender. Chromosomes determine DNA & the genetics passed on from mother and father. Yr a silly woman.
1
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2806d
I'm assuming you went to public school, and your parents left you in front of the TV a lot.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Chromosomes determine if u have a penis or a vagina. There are 2 possible combinations XX which will make u a female and XY which will make u a male. Hormones imballance is a illness.
replied 2806d
It's not just Chromosomes. We have many XY Male chromosome people today with vaginas. And vice versa.
replied 2805d
do you mean intersex people or people with a front hole?
replied 2805d
People who have Sex Change surgeries. If you're born a man with XY and have a sex change surgery, you have a vagina and XY. Pretty simple.
replied 2805d
ok... 😬
Barricade
replied 2806d
More concretely, is the SRY gene located in chromosome Y. There are several sex chromosome aneuploidies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sex_chromosome_aneuploidies
Barricade
replied 2806d
Of course, then gene expresion leads to hormone release which determines gender. For example, estrogen leads to brain masculinization under fetal development.
replied 2806d
Are you really so noble that you can make a permanent statement here that you never have sexual urges? or activity for the purpose of pleasure rather than strictly reproduction?
replied 2806d
I have to guess you have not managed to find a dictionary, or if you have, you cant figure out how to use it. Good luck with that. Let me know, when you have managed to.
replied 2806d
That's what pervert means, "distort or corrupt the original course, meaning, or state of (something)" So, by definition any sexual act of pleasure is an act of perversion.
replied 2806d
Keep reading. This is only a part of it.
replied 2806d
Yeah, doing something unnatural or unacceptable. That's just your opinion, and a fucking shitty one at that.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Puting a penis in a vagina for reproduction in natural. No one can deny that unless you are deeply retarded.Unnatural is puting a penis in an anus to reproduce yourself. Not gonna work
replied 2806d
No gay is having anal sex thinking they are going to produce a child... They are doing it for their own pleasure.
3
1,234
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Their perverted pleasure, yes.
replied 2806d
So why exactly is a gay guy having sex for pleasure some morally degenerate thing, but someone hooking up on Tinder with a girl for a one nighter somehow more acceptable?
2
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2806d
One is the normal sexual act, and one isn't.
replied 2805d
argumentum ad populum
replied 2801d
That sort of argument always wins over the crowds though, and we live in a democracy:P
replied 2801d
yeah... I know 😔
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
I would argue that both are perverted but one is taking it a step further.
replied 2806d
I have no problem with either. Those are victimless actions and it really is no ones fucking business.
2
replied 2806d
Why should you get to decide who people can have that pleasure with and how?
2
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
I don't but by definition doing so is definitely a perverted way of orienting pleasure meant for reproduction purpose.
1
Barricade
replied 2806d
No, that's religious bullshit, just moral judgment. Fortunately, freewill allows human being to have all kind of sex only for pleasure without caring about reproduction.
2
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2806d
"perverted" means To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. Nothing to do with religion.
1
Barricade
replied 2806d
When you attribute perversion to someone or someone, you're doing a moral judgment, it cannot be inferred by any science field. Moral judgments comes from culture and religion.
1
replied 2801d
That requires you to first make the moral judgement that perverted is bad. Which someone could argue was not the case. Perverting the justice of an unjust law for example:P
1
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2806d
You can call it a "moral judgment", but its also objective fact. Putting penis in anus = eating through your nose.
Barricade
replied 2806d
Why are you assuming a reproductive purpose on sex? Are you comparing humans to animals, or enforcing people to have kids?
1
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2805d
That is like asking, "Why are you assuming a digestive purpose on eating?" Sex is for the purposes of reproduction - that's just fact. Keep your strawmans to yourself.
Barricade
replied 2805d
One thing human development has achieve is to split sex from reproduction. Humans will have sex for fun, it's human nature. You cannot go against it, religions have failed.
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2803d
That doesn't change what nature's intent for your organs is. You are free to engage in crimes against nature, but don't try to convince people its "normal".
Barricade
replied 2802d
Natural selection IS nature, you can't go against it unless you like eugenesia and reducing genetic pool. Again: crime is a moral judgement, not science.
Barricade
replied 2802d
Homosexuality has been always present in nature. It has a evolutionary advantage (paradox) because it has not been discarded by natural selection.
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2802d
Your premise fails basic logic. Homosexuality is discarded by natural selection by definition - it doesn't end in reproduction.
Barricade
replied 2800d
If homosexuality is discarded by natural selection, why it still exist? Are you assuming a Mendelian inheritance of homosexuality?
1
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2799d
"If homosexuality is discarded by natural selection, why it still exist? " I'm sure non-stop promotion in the media helps. Literally every TV show has gay character by the 2nd season.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2802d
Illnesses have been always present in nature. Contracting them is certainly not an advantage since your genes are being removed from the genpool (inability to procreate).
replied 2805d
"objective"
replied 2801d
My sense of humor is objectively shitty.
replied 2806d
Ok. But that makes the majority of heterosexual sex perverted in nature too, since most people have sexual relationships before marriage, and certainly intent to reproduce.
2
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Indeed but mariage is only a social construct for the only purpose of keeping sex unperverted with more or less efficiency.
replied 2801d
Are you making the case against perverted sex in general? (Like out of marriage sex for fun?).
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2801d
In a way.
replied 2801d
Would you advocate voluntary celibacy and avoiding masturbation and/or sexual lusting/imagery in general? As a good way to live life (if not for other, then for yourself?)
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2801d
I would advocate masturbation being behavior trying to patch a biological need unsatisfied.
replied 2801d
The lesser of two evils? If a person is able to abstain from it and control themselves otherwise, then it is preferable in your view. Correct?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2801d
I wouldn't says so. I know no biological organ or function that doesn't need stimulation to at least maintain or improve itself. Bones, muscles, brain and even the immunity system.
replied 2801d
In other words, If it is not medically necessary or beneficial to masturbate, and there was a way to know this for sure, then you would advocate for abstaining from masturbation.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2801d
*why would I
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2801d
If its not beneficial why I advocate for it?
replied 2801d
So if you found out that masturbation was not beneficial to you, would you stop masturbating?
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2801d
If I find out that it is detrimental, of course.
replied 2801d
What if it is not detrimental? (Not beneficial, not detrimental, neutral).
Unknown
replied 2801d
I don't know. All I know is that I won't have any arguments for neither supporting the practice or the abstinence of it.
replied 2801d
But would that not be the case with sex between men and women as well? The male body regulates the penis with boners in sleep and nocturnal emissions. No need to masturbate.
replied 2801d
It seems that masturbation has a good effect on prostate cancer for those who masturbate AFTER they turn 50, but it has the opposite (negative) effect (very small) in 20s to 50s.
Leading zeros
replied 2806d
What if the seamen leaks out the anus(i.e. blowing bubbles) into the vagina? Could work in theory.
replied 2806d
In theory? People get impregnated by jizz-farts all the time...
1
replied 2801d
That is why the two holes are so close together, also part of the reason we fart, it is a very elegant solution.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2806d
Eating with your nose could also work, in theory.
replied 2801d
That is how they force feed hunger striking prisoners, tube through the nose.
replied 2808d
What are you implying by "self control"? If his actions were morally right, it wasn't perversion.. You are not born to be a pervert, you learn to become one.
replied 2801d
People tend to disagree on that. People claim to have been born all sorts of things thought. Is it possible to be born into something like robotics fetish. Maybe. But I do not know.
replied 2808d
Asexual:"Without sexual feelings or associations." Is Oxford good enough for you?
replied 2801d
"I did not have sexual associations with that woman" The Asexual version of Bill Clinton.
replied 2808d
So what, you cut everybody's balls off and grow humans like Brave new world? We will always have to deal with weak people that can't control themselves.
replied 2801d
If strong willed individuals are able to control their urges and behaviors and prioritize grand goals outside of procreation, then we know where humanity is headed as a whole.


About Privacy Terms Stats