Create account

replied 2914d
TrashPosterInTheDark
Yes, and paired with an inevitable lack of self control are the source of rape, pedophilia, fetishes etc. in the world.
2 / 189
replied 2914d
"paired with an inevitable lack of self control" -> LGBTQ and the rest of the perverts.
1
Metalbrushes_Tattoo
replied 2914d
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 2913d
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 2913d
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 2913d
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 2913d
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 2913d
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 2913d
But their sooooo yummy! 🤤
1
replied 2911d
want to read his book.
replied 2911d
More stuff here: https://nutritionfacts.org/
1
556
replied 2911d
I will read it when time permits.
replied 2913d
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 2907d
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 2911d
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 2910d
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 2910d
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 2909d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
"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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
Top soil erosion is s problem you likely have not heard of. Grassland for meatgeazing is environmentally friendly.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
Consumers are responsible for the demand they create in the market. I don't trust government to fix this problem. Capitalism will fix it.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
@Pham, what is your agenda for promoting this diet?
replied 2907d
In no particular order: Health, animal welfare, economic efficiency, environment, technological progress, non-aggression, reason, science, humanism, civilization.
replied 2907d
Those are not real reasons. Most are myths.
2
555
replied 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
That doesn't address anything I argued.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
Plants require less land than animals. Shipping is quite cheap. Not to mention that lots of meat is shipped from developing countries to the West.
replied 2907d
They require different land. Also it would be bad to add that much extra topsoil for produce considering we already use it faster than it is produced. It is efficient to have cattle.
replied 2907d
Plant-based meat replacements are already cheaper than meat.
replied 2906d
You seem like a very communist, or at least central authoritised for an AnCap. I eat beef because it is one of the greatest foods. It doesn't lack amino acids, and taste better.
replied 2906d
How on Earth could you possibly interpret anything I've said as being communist? Please give some examples of what you mean.
replied 2906d
You want to decide what people eat, and what to grow, instead of letting the market, and individuals decide.
replied 2906d
No, I have never expressed such desires. I'm making *arguments* as to why eating some things is bad and eating other things is good. I don't support government bans on meat.
replied 2907d
You cant eat the rainforest. Poor nations cant easily import all their food needs. Their population is booming. You are wrong to think k they only graze with cattle.
replied 2907d
So eat plants, save the rainforest.
replied 2906d
They burn the rainforest to grow plants already. They don't use it mostly for cattle. It is mostly used for sugar cane. Other crops as well, and obviously some grazing land.
replied 2907d
I don't know what all of those mean but I will be sure to look into it.
replied 2907d
Eckhart Tolle a spiritual teacher has publicly stated that eventually the body and mind will die.
replied 2907d
Obviously. But why speed up the process?
replied 2907d
Good point.
replied 2907d
On a long enough timeframe the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. https://www.zerohedge.com/
replied 2907d
I agree.
replied 2907d
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 2910d
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 2910d
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 2910d
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 2910d
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 2910d
vegan hipsters or their food? as people they can be a little pompous but the food they make is really good
replied 2913d
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 2912d
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 2914d
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 2913d
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 2913d
That's a lot of stats, got anything to back any of it all up?
replied 2912d
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 2911d
Um no. I wasn't challenging you, I'm genuinely asking.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
Cheers, thank you for the info! Very interesting!
replied 2907d
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 2907d
The newest number I could find was 83% of Syphilis cases Bi/Homosexual men, https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
replied 2907d
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 2907d
-> 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 2907d
-> 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 2907d
-> 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 2907d
-> sexually and/or romantically interested and functional with adults do not abuse children, gay, bi or straight.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
-> 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 2907d
-> 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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2914d
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 2913d
V, speak for yourself and for fuck sake, please, get a dictionary and figure out what the word "pervert" means.
replied 2912d
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 2912d
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 2912d
Probably because the people your calling perverts have done nothing wrong.
1
1,000
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2912d
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 2912d
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 2912d
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 2912d
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 2912d
I'm assuming you went to public school, and your parents left you in front of the TV a lot.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2912d
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 2912d
It's not just Chromosomes. We have many XY Male chromosome people today with vaginas. And vice versa.
replied 2911d
do you mean intersex people or people with a front hole?
replied 2911d
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 2911d
ok... 😬
Barricade
replied 2912d
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 2912d
Of course, then gene expresion leads to hormone release which determines gender. For example, estrogen leads to brain masculinization under fetal development.
replied 2912d
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 2912d
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 2912d
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 2912d
Keep reading. This is only a part of it.
replied 2912d
Yeah, doing something unnatural or unacceptable. That's just your opinion, and a fucking shitty one at that.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2912d
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 2912d
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 2912d
Their perverted pleasure, yes.
replied 2912d
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 2912d
One is the normal sexual act, and one isn't.
replied 2911d
argumentum ad populum
replied 2907d
That sort of argument always wins over the crowds though, and we live in a democracy:P
replied 2906d
yeah... I know 😔
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2912d
I would argue that both are perverted but one is taking it a step further.
replied 2912d
I have no problem with either. Those are victimless actions and it really is no ones fucking business.
2
replied 2912d
Why should you get to decide who people can have that pleasure with and how?
2
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2912d
I don't but by definition doing so is definitely a perverted way of orienting pleasure meant for reproduction purpose.
1
Barricade
replied 2912d
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 2912d
"perverted" means To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. Nothing to do with religion.
1
Barricade
replied 2912d
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 2907d
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 2912d
You can call it a "moral judgment", but its also objective fact. Putting penis in anus = eating through your nose.
Barricade
replied 2911d
Why are you assuming a reproductive purpose on sex? Are you comparing humans to animals, or enforcing people to have kids?
1
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2911d
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 2910d
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 2908d
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 2907d
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 2907d
Homosexuality has been always present in nature. It has a evolutionary advantage (paradox) because it has not been discarded by natural selection.
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2907d
Your premise fails basic logic. Homosexuality is discarded by natural selection by definition - it doesn't end in reproduction.
Barricade
replied 2905d
If homosexuality is discarded by natural selection, why it still exist? Are you assuming a Mendelian inheritance of homosexuality?
1
CryptoAnarchist
replied 2905d
"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 2907d
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 2911d
"objective"
replied 2907d
My sense of humor is objectively shitty.
replied 2912d
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 2912d
Indeed but mariage is only a social construct for the only purpose of keeping sex unperverted with more or less efficiency.
replied 2907d
Are you making the case against perverted sex in general? (Like out of marriage sex for fun?).
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2907d
In a way.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
I would advocate masturbation being behavior trying to patch a biological need unsatisfied.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
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 2907d
*why would I
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2907d
If its not beneficial why I advocate for it?
replied 2907d
So if you found out that masturbation was not beneficial to you, would you stop masturbating?
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2907d
If I find out that it is detrimental, of course.
replied 2907d
What if it is not detrimental? (Not beneficial, not detrimental, neutral).
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2907d
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 2907d
The argument against it would be that it was perverted in the context of this thread. It is non-reproductive pleasure seeking done for sexual gratification.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2907d
The argument would depend if it is used in substitution or not.
replied 2907d
Substitution for what? Reproductive sex?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2907d
Yes.
replied 2906d
So if it is not a substitution for reproductive sex, then masturbation would not be a perverted act? Did I understand that correctly.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2906d
Yes, in such an hypothetical scenario.
replied 2906d
In other words, if two men meet up and jerk each other off, as long as that is not as substitution for reproductive sex, then it is not perverted.
2
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2906d
I'll let you be judge.
replied 2906d
You mentioned earlier in this topic that you found any activity that was done for sexual gratification outside of reproductive sex as being a mental illness or at least perverted.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2906d
Exactly. Yet I won't continue to speculate on a hypothetical scenario that is likely not based on reality.
replied 2906d
I think that any sexual act that is not reproductive is perverted, but that perverted acts are not a bad thing in themselves just because it is perverted.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2906d
Yes, some illnesses have more dangerous consequences than others. It's a spectrum.
replied 2906d
You view masturbation to be on the spectrum of mental illnesses, but on the lower end of it. less bad than doing other sexual stuff that is worse on the scale. (Correct me if wrong)
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2906d
Pretty much unless it is to release unsatisfied biological urges.
replied 2906d
That exception makes no sense, acting on the urges with masturbation is the illness, not the urges themselves, they are meant to remain unsatisfied outside of reproductive sex.
replied 2904d
Your sexual organs need exercise to be healthy, just like every other part of your body. Ethics is more rational when we replace the Good vs Evil dichotomy with Healthy vs Unhealthy.
replied 2904d
There is no medical need for people to masturbate unless they have some form of sexual dysfunction which can be treated by it, it looks to be neutral in moderation.
replied 2901d
source?
replied 2901d
Masturbation is not necessary for the functioning of the body or the sexual organs of men in general, it is an optional personal choice they can make to do, not medical necessity.
replied 2901d
Each person can consult their doctor and ask them if it is medically necessary to masturbate if they do not feel like it. It is generally not.
replied 2904d
I am not making an ethical/moral/healthy claim, I was probing TrashPoster about his arguments about what he categorized as mental illness. I do not think that here needs to be any->
replied 2904d
-> reason, ethical or health related, to masturbate. It is just something that people do because they enjoy it, I am not making the claim that it is a mental illness or wrong either ->
replied 2904d
-> every person knows best what is best for themselves and they should be free to chose, there does not need to be a "health" or "ethics" justification for doing anything with your ->
replied 2904d
-> own body. But there is no need to do anything that is healthy unless one feels like it either, masturbation is just a personal choice a person can make without any justification.
replied 2907d
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 2907d
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 2911d
What if the seamen leaks out the anus(i.e. blowing bubbles) into the vagina? Could work in theory.
replied 2911d
In theory? People get impregnated by jizz-farts all the time...
1
replied 2907d
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 2911d
Eating with your nose could also work, in theory.
replied 2907d
That is how they force feed hunger striking prisoners, tube through the nose.
replied 2914d
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 2907d
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 2914d
Asexual:"Without sexual feelings or associations." Is Oxford good enough for you?
replied 2907d
"I did not have sexual associations with that woman" The Asexual version of Bill Clinton.
replied 2914d
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 2907d
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