Can't we just drop that morality shit and go back to the OP?
So... if we dont include animals what live in the water:
It depends on things. If we are accidentally get into an animals way and got caught in the sexual attempt, then anything bigger or equal sized as a horse ranging to an elephant would be the worst, because of the crushing and trashing of the animal and it's penis. Our skulls and ribs would just break because of their enourmous cock.
If the animal have human inteligence and a real intention to rape, and we assume they can insert themselves, then a horse, or bear would be bad, but it would be fucking wacky if you got gangraped by ducks with their twisty tentacle like dicks.
If we assume that the animal have anthromorph portions, so human sized dick but with the features of the animal, then feline dick might be real bad because of the barbs.
------------------------------------------
If we count water animals then the winner is the dolphin.
They are nasty as fuck. They bite off the head of the fish and rape the husked body. They even do gangrape with their own peers.
Now imagine these nasty fucks gangraping every little hole in your pathetic body while trashing around in the water. That would be realllyyyy bad.
Oh, I forgot about that if the animal is human sized, then basically any insect would be fucked up, because they usually stab the other with their genitalia like a fucking lance.
OP here, if you're gonna derail my thread with this crap at least say why you think morality is objective, not just "durr slavery is wrong because i say so me smrat you stutid".
And you
[...]
Exodus 21, you uneducated dumb shit. And yes, it was fine. More, it was fucking critical. Do you know what things would be like if slavery was always forbidden? Industrialization would never have happened. Slavery was critical for early economies and the development of intellectual specialization. I can guarantee if you lived in some mud hole village and a few hundred conquerors came through, you'd take the bond over the blade. Fuck off with the pseud horse shit.
, make a better argument than "hurr durr muh society", you sound like a 2010s tumblr SJW.
>make a better argument than "hurr durr muh society"
What do you want me to do, yell about how it's all the garden gnomes? I've dropped the truth at your feet. If you're too much of a dumb shit to understand then it's not my problem.
No one's having any trouble understanding you dipshit, you're making a weak argument. Don't just ramble about society like an SJW, tell him why morality is relative. Morality isn't relative because ancient cultures had different values, it's the other way around.
It's not my job to prove a negative. I'm saying that every society thinks their unique morality is objective and absolute, which is evidence enough to seriously challenge your position. People kill each other over the concept, each side saying theirs is the real objective morality. Why is yours any different? I doubt you'll respond seriously because objectivity is a very hard thing to prove. Throwing around shit like "sjw" is easier even if it makes no fucking sense.
The reality is that in 100 years, your descendants will have different morality than you, and they'll likely also think it's objective.
I'm at the exact point because it's a comfortable, high place. If you've nothing to argue, then just sit with me. If you have a better vantage point, suggest it and I might follow. So far all I've seen of you is stamping your feet below.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm at the exact point because it's a comfortable, high place.
So you're not really invested in the argument, you've just been junking up the thread because you like hearing yourself talk? Checks out.
>If you have a better vantage point, suggest it and I might follow.
Like I said I'm already on your side, I just chimed in because I was sick of watching your debate. It was like a boxing max between two quadriplegics.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Nah, you're definitely the shitter here. Saying nothing except "I don't like what you're saying". Clearly emotionally invested behind the pathetic facade. I'm not at all convinced you're not the person who claims objective morality. You're pretending to be impartial to save face, with is extra ridiculous on an anonymous imageboard.
I made a well reasoned, coherent argument. Attack it directly or admit your retardation. Side stepping further is the latter.
5 months ago
Anonymous
OK baby Einstein, just for demonstrative purposes, here's how you argue that morality is relative: For objective morality to exist, there has to be an objective way to distinguish between right and wrong, that is to say good actions, intentions, thoughts and consequences versus bad ones. This is impossible because good and bad are concepts that only exist within the mind. There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. I could concede that some things, like slavery for instance, are much more likely to inspire bad thoughts in an observer than good, and therefore could be considered generally bad, but this too is a conception of the mind, not an inherent quality of slavery itself.
Now, because I'm a nice guy and I care, let's talk about your very obvious neurosis. Your refusal to give up or even adjust your argument after engaging in a wholly unproductive 3 day debate, with a stranger in a thread about a completely different subject on a Balinese Christmas tree forum, indicates that you lack humility. It doesn't occur to you that your argument is flawed, you think if it doesn't persuade someone then you haven't anunciated it clearly or they're just dumb. This is further demonstrated by how you take personal offense to being told your argument is weak, by someone who already agrees with you no less, and act like I've grievously insulted you by offering you advice. All this points to a severe case of unwarranted self importance, perhaps clinical narcissism.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>For objective morality to exist, there has to be an objective way to distinguish between right and wrong
The people I'm talking with just claim divine judgment, making your argument worthless.
Which is why I went with a contradiction proof which can't be hand waved with talk of god. It can't be discounted even if they refuse to consider evidence outside their own religious texts. >you lack humility
You lack rigor and foresight >if it doesn't persuade someone then you haven't anunciated it clearly
No, I think you're purposefully misinterpreting it because it's an impossible challenge. The argument you're suggesting instead moves the ball into non-falsifiable territory and is trivially "attacked" (water muddied). When I saw the length of your post I thought maybe I was wrong, and you are just trying to help, but the content is so weak and thoughtless that I'm still left unconvinced. Either you're suffering from dunning kruger, or you're a false flagging cultist.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>The people I'm talking with just claim divine judgment, making your argument worthless.
Notice how we haven't heard from the other Anon since I pointed out he's not specifying his source of objectivity?
>Which is why I went with a contradiction proof
You said morality is relative because other cultures had different ideas about it. I don't have to explain why that's a bad argument, your opponent already did that well enough
[...]
.
>When I saw the length of your post I thought maybe I was wrong, and you are just trying to help, but the content is so weak and thoughtless that I'm still left unconvinced. Either you're suffering from dunning kruger, or you're a false flagging cultist.
Dude. You're still arguing with me even after I stated multiple times I already agree with you. Maybe what you've got is oppositional defiant disorder.
imagine the collective time wasted spent writing paragraph after paragraph of pseudointellectual moralposting on Wauf.
get a new hobby you sad fuckers
Good point, I should go get a psychiatry certificate and at least get paid for this.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't have to explain why that's a bad argument, your opponent already did that well enough
lmao that post was eviscerated. My god, you really are a false flagging christcuck. It's just not possible to be this retarded.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, by me. You just repeated the same bad argument again like an NPR guest speaker.
5 months ago
Anonymous
You said literally nothing of any worth whatsoever. >the same bad argument
Still awaiting a refutation.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Still awaiting a refutation. >The thing about objective morality that you do not understand that it is possible for everyone to be wrong at one time.
This blew right past you bro. An objectively bad thing, if such a thing exists, is still bad even if it has apparently good consequences. You said without slavery there would've been no industrialization or intellectual specialization, but you have no more right to claim those things are good than he does to claim slavery is bad.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>This blew right past you bro.
It did not. I didn't address it because it could potentially be true if his argument for the existence of a universal morality was correct. If he said that without any further assertion, then I would have asked for an example of what an objective bad looks like, but they did provide one. The challenge to find an inconsistency in his religion on the slavery matter was what they were actually getting at, so that's what I replied to. That's why they shut up, because they knew I could do it all day long and cut their personal objective source into ribbons. The route you took would let them spin long, dramatic yarns about Jesus all day.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>I didn't address it because it could potentially be true if his argument for the existence of a universal morality was correct >The challenge to find an inconsistency in his religion on the slavery matter was what they were actually getting at, so that's what I replied to.
There you go, you just explained why your argument sucked. You danced around the central premise and made a determined attack on the minor details. If you took a philosophy class the very first thing you'd learn is the difference between "you're wrong because your facts are wrong" and "you're wrong and even if you're facts were right you'd still be wrong".
>That's why they shut up, because they knew I could do it all day long
Well, if that's the case I really can't blame him.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Minor details, you mean the central point that morality can be derived from religious text. That minor detail, the only thing they cared about. Just a small, little life long obsession. Insignificant really.
You fucking knob.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Calling me a fucking knob is an odd way to thank me for telling you how to refute that, but you're welcome.
Exodus 21, you uneducated dumb shit. And yes, it was fine. More, it was fucking critical. Do you know what things would be like if slavery was always forbidden? Industrialization would never have happened. Slavery was critical for early economies and the development of intellectual specialization. I can guarantee if you lived in some mud hole village and a few hundred conquerors came through, you'd take the bond over the blade. Fuck off with the pseud horse shit.
Slavery is not always bad for civilization and it worked for thousands of years to excellent effect. There was a long period of time where if your society didn't use slavery, it would be overtaken by one which did. Slavery was only made obsolete through industrialization and now there's no economic reason to keep it, so the ethical disadvantages outweighed any possible positives.
You think it's objectively bad because you have an extremely narrow view of the possible shapes a human society can take. We are extremely flexible creatures.
I'm saying it was fine for thousands of years, and the slaves unironically were better off on average because otherwise they'd just be dead. Human history is fucking savage and there was far worse to be worrying about for a very long time. You only think "slavery evil" from a very sheltered point of view. Indeed, it's an entirely unjustifiable thing in any industrial country, and that's the goddamn point. Morality must be tailored to the conditions. There are no universal rules which always work. Our world is painted in shades of barely distinguishable gray.
>I'm saying it was fine for thousands of years
I know you're saying that. What I'm trying to figure out is why. Were you dropped on your head a a child? Have you had a stroke recently that deprived your brain of oxygen for an extended period of time?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>t. sheltered western twitter poster with no knowledge of history
5 months ago
Anonymous
Humans have free will and have done literally anything and everything through history. Having done something doesn't make it right, though. You're not making any sense.
5 months ago
Anonymous
In 500 years some retards on a holocom will call you a literal Nazi for using a drop of fossil fuel in your life. They'll claim objective morality, and be just as wrong as you are now.
If something is true, then it's true all the time. Stealing is defined as the unwanted taking of resources by one person of another person, usually by force, intimidation or secrecy. There is no coherent way to define it with exceptions. If you *want to* have your resources taken from you, like you put a chair at the end of your driveway with a "free" sign on it, then that's not stealing. That's giving or donating. It doesn't matter if the person taking your resources has a uniform on that says "IRS;" if you don't want him to take your resources, that is stealing.
It doesn't matter that recognition of private ownership or property is a cornerstone of a free society, and societies that don't recognize property rights tend to languish in tyrannical dictatorship and eventually get overtaken by a more robust civilization. From a survivalistic perspective, a civilization will benefit in the short-term by recognizing property rights of their own people, but exploiting all of the rest of the world, and if they can do it secretly, they might benefit in the long-term, as well. Morality is not concerned with survival, however.
Good enough is the enemy of perfect. Look at dinosaurs who became birds who then overspecialized so much they may as well now be a dead end that will never become more.
>Natural selection is the discovery of an objectively superior design.
lol no it isn't. Even in evolution and the steps we took to become human are filled with flaws and compromise that plague us to this day.
How can morality be universalized if it's relative? Do you think morality only applies sometimes or in certain situations? Why don't any other concepts in the universe only apply sometimes, like on Tuesdays only?
>morality only applies sometimes or in certain situations
Yes precisely. It's never been fixed, you just have a narrow view through the lens of your own culture. Sometimes slavery is okay for thousands of years, then it's not. Sometimes one race is okay for killing, sometimes they're precious. Sometimes the king is a sacred extension of God, then he's on the guillotine block.
Morality is relative. It can not be broadly universalized. The study of law has tried to make it so since we invented written language, and still our world is a fractured mess with no clear winner. All we have are basic axioms, ones which have generally shown to be beneficial. No killing, no stealing. Yet still we sometimes need to break them.
>Slavery and genocide are not sometimes OK
According to your culture, but not according to the culture of your ancestors and not according to some extant cultures in the world today. By claiming universal morality, all you're really doing is stomping around yelling about how your personal morality is best because reasons.
[...]
Natural selection is all about change you retard. It's the admission that no design is best, and the only solution to survival is motion and experimentation.
Rape is a word that implies the aggressor can conceptualize morality and have abstract moral principles, which animals can't do. Animals lack moral free will; they are literal slaves to their impulses and instincts.
In a rape, the aggressor is aware that it's possible for the victim to consent, but intentionally ignores their refusal -- that's what makes it a rape. A rapist is able to understand that his action is the initiation of force and therefore wrong. Animals are guided by instinct alone. They can't understand the concept of consent, nor enter into a contract even if the human victim did give their consent for the sex act. Therefore, an animal having sex with a human is not a rape, but just an attempted copulation.
A human sized tick. They procreate by stinging the female I believe. Runner up is a lantern fish that bites you then becomes a parasitic mole on your body that's pumping you with cum 24/7.
Okay, angler fish explains why I couldn't Google shit. That video is kino and... informative, but I can't help but feel someone has jacked off to it before.
Can't we just drop that morality shit and go back to the OP?
So... if we dont include animals what live in the water:
It depends on things. If we are accidentally get into an animals way and got caught in the sexual attempt, then anything bigger or equal sized as a horse ranging to an elephant would be the worst, because of the crushing and trashing of the animal and it's penis. Our skulls and ribs would just break because of their enourmous cock.
If the animal have human inteligence and a real intention to rape, and we assume they can insert themselves, then a horse, or bear would be bad, but it would be fucking wacky if you got gangraped by ducks with their twisty tentacle like dicks.
If we assume that the animal have anthromorph portions, so human sized dick but with the features of the animal, then feline dick might be real bad because of the barbs.
------------------------------------------
If we count water animals then the winner is the dolphin.
They are nasty as fuck. They bite off the head of the fish and rape the husked body. They even do gangrape with their own peers.
Now imagine these nasty fucks gangraping every little hole in your pathetic body while trashing around in the water. That would be realllyyyy bad.
Oh, I forgot about that if the animal is human sized, then basically any insect would be fucked up, because they usually stab the other with their genitalia like a fucking lance.
imagine the collective time wasted spent writing paragraph after paragraph of pseudointellectual moralposting on Wauf.
get a new hobby you sad fuckers
mr hands
Probably a tiger although I think a crocodile would also suck because they got like big bungee cord penises
OP here, if you're gonna derail my thread with this crap at least say why you think morality is objective, not just "durr slavery is wrong because i say so me smrat you stutid".
And you
, make a better argument than "hurr durr muh society", you sound like a 2010s tumblr SJW.
>make a better argument than "hurr durr muh society"
What do you want me to do, yell about how it's all the garden gnomes? I've dropped the truth at your feet. If you're too much of a dumb shit to understand then it's not my problem.
No one's having any trouble understanding you dipshit, you're making a weak argument. Don't just ramble about society like an SJW, tell him why morality is relative. Morality isn't relative because ancient cultures had different values, it's the other way around.
It's not my job to prove a negative. I'm saying that every society thinks their unique morality is objective and absolute, which is evidence enough to seriously challenge your position. People kill each other over the concept, each side saying theirs is the real objective morality. Why is yours any different? I doubt you'll respond seriously because objectivity is a very hard thing to prove. Throwing around shit like "sjw" is easier even if it makes no fucking sense.
The reality is that in 100 years, your descendants will have different morality than you, and they'll likely also think it's objective.
moron I'm on your side, I'm trying to tell you why you've been arguing for 3 days and you're still at the exact point you started at.
I'm at the exact point because it's a comfortable, high place. If you've nothing to argue, then just sit with me. If you have a better vantage point, suggest it and I might follow. So far all I've seen of you is stamping your feet below.
>I'm at the exact point because it's a comfortable, high place.
So you're not really invested in the argument, you've just been junking up the thread because you like hearing yourself talk? Checks out.
>If you have a better vantage point, suggest it and I might follow.
Like I said I'm already on your side, I just chimed in because I was sick of watching your debate. It was like a boxing max between two quadriplegics.
Nah, you're definitely the shitter here. Saying nothing except "I don't like what you're saying". Clearly emotionally invested behind the pathetic facade. I'm not at all convinced you're not the person who claims objective morality. You're pretending to be impartial to save face, with is extra ridiculous on an anonymous imageboard.
I made a well reasoned, coherent argument. Attack it directly or admit your retardation. Side stepping further is the latter.
OK baby Einstein, just for demonstrative purposes, here's how you argue that morality is relative: For objective morality to exist, there has to be an objective way to distinguish between right and wrong, that is to say good actions, intentions, thoughts and consequences versus bad ones. This is impossible because good and bad are concepts that only exist within the mind. There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. I could concede that some things, like slavery for instance, are much more likely to inspire bad thoughts in an observer than good, and therefore could be considered generally bad, but this too is a conception of the mind, not an inherent quality of slavery itself.
Now, because I'm a nice guy and I care, let's talk about your very obvious neurosis. Your refusal to give up or even adjust your argument after engaging in a wholly unproductive 3 day debate, with a stranger in a thread about a completely different subject on a Balinese Christmas tree forum, indicates that you lack humility. It doesn't occur to you that your argument is flawed, you think if it doesn't persuade someone then you haven't anunciated it clearly or they're just dumb. This is further demonstrated by how you take personal offense to being told your argument is weak, by someone who already agrees with you no less, and act like I've grievously insulted you by offering you advice. All this points to a severe case of unwarranted self importance, perhaps clinical narcissism.
>For objective morality to exist, there has to be an objective way to distinguish between right and wrong
The people I'm talking with just claim divine judgment, making your argument worthless.
Which is why I went with a contradiction proof which can't be hand waved with talk of god. It can't be discounted even if they refuse to consider evidence outside their own religious texts.
>you lack humility
You lack rigor and foresight
>if it doesn't persuade someone then you haven't anunciated it clearly
No, I think you're purposefully misinterpreting it because it's an impossible challenge. The argument you're suggesting instead moves the ball into non-falsifiable territory and is trivially "attacked" (water muddied). When I saw the length of your post I thought maybe I was wrong, and you are just trying to help, but the content is so weak and thoughtless that I'm still left unconvinced. Either you're suffering from dunning kruger, or you're a false flagging cultist.
>The people I'm talking with just claim divine judgment, making your argument worthless.
Notice how we haven't heard from the other Anon since I pointed out he's not specifying his source of objectivity?
>Which is why I went with a contradiction proof
You said morality is relative because other cultures had different ideas about it. I don't have to explain why that's a bad argument, your opponent already did that well enough
.
>When I saw the length of your post I thought maybe I was wrong, and you are just trying to help, but the content is so weak and thoughtless that I'm still left unconvinced. Either you're suffering from dunning kruger, or you're a false flagging cultist.
Dude. You're still arguing with me even after I stated multiple times I already agree with you. Maybe what you've got is oppositional defiant disorder.
Good point, I should go get a psychiatry certificate and at least get paid for this.
>I don't have to explain why that's a bad argument, your opponent already did that well enough
lmao that post was eviscerated. My god, you really are a false flagging christcuck. It's just not possible to be this retarded.
Yes, by me. You just repeated the same bad argument again like an NPR guest speaker.
You said literally nothing of any worth whatsoever.
>the same bad argument
Still awaiting a refutation.
>Still awaiting a refutation.
>The thing about objective morality that you do not understand that it is possible for everyone to be wrong at one time.
This blew right past you bro. An objectively bad thing, if such a thing exists, is still bad even if it has apparently good consequences. You said without slavery there would've been no industrialization or intellectual specialization, but you have no more right to claim those things are good than he does to claim slavery is bad.
>This blew right past you bro.
It did not. I didn't address it because it could potentially be true if his argument for the existence of a universal morality was correct. If he said that without any further assertion, then I would have asked for an example of what an objective bad looks like, but they did provide one. The challenge to find an inconsistency in his religion on the slavery matter was what they were actually getting at, so that's what I replied to. That's why they shut up, because they knew I could do it all day long and cut their personal objective source into ribbons. The route you took would let them spin long, dramatic yarns about Jesus all day.
>I didn't address it because it could potentially be true if his argument for the existence of a universal morality was correct
>The challenge to find an inconsistency in his religion on the slavery matter was what they were actually getting at, so that's what I replied to.
There you go, you just explained why your argument sucked. You danced around the central premise and made a determined attack on the minor details. If you took a philosophy class the very first thing you'd learn is the difference between "you're wrong because your facts are wrong" and "you're wrong and even if you're facts were right you'd still be wrong".
>That's why they shut up, because they knew I could do it all day long
Well, if that's the case I really can't blame him.
Minor details, you mean the central point that morality can be derived from religious text. That minor detail, the only thing they cared about. Just a small, little life long obsession. Insignificant really.
You fucking knob.
Calling me a fucking knob is an odd way to thank me for telling you how to refute that, but you're welcome.
Exodus 21, you uneducated dumb shit. And yes, it was fine. More, it was fucking critical. Do you know what things would be like if slavery was always forbidden? Industrialization would never have happened. Slavery was critical for early economies and the development of intellectual specialization. I can guarantee if you lived in some mud hole village and a few hundred conquerors came through, you'd take the bond over the blade. Fuck off with the pseud horse shit.
My cousin Terry. He has a whole semi trailer set up for it.
Slavery is not always bad for civilization and it worked for thousands of years to excellent effect. There was a long period of time where if your society didn't use slavery, it would be overtaken by one which did. Slavery was only made obsolete through industrialization and now there's no economic reason to keep it, so the ethical disadvantages outweighed any possible positives.
You think it's objectively bad because you have an extremely narrow view of the possible shapes a human society can take. We are extremely flexible creatures.
Please answer
That's a disingenuous question. No I'm not female, and I'm not trolling. Stop being retarded.
You're saying that slavery is good, so what the hell is wrong with you, then?
I'm saying it was fine for thousands of years, and the slaves unironically were better off on average because otherwise they'd just be dead. Human history is fucking savage and there was far worse to be worrying about for a very long time. You only think "slavery evil" from a very sheltered point of view. Indeed, it's an entirely unjustifiable thing in any industrial country, and that's the goddamn point. Morality must be tailored to the conditions. There are no universal rules which always work. Our world is painted in shades of barely distinguishable gray.
>I'm saying it was fine for thousands of years
I know you're saying that. What I'm trying to figure out is why. Were you dropped on your head a a child? Have you had a stroke recently that deprived your brain of oxygen for an extended period of time?
>t. sheltered western twitter poster with no knowledge of history
Humans have free will and have done literally anything and everything through history. Having done something doesn't make it right, though. You're not making any sense.
In 500 years some retards on a holocom will call you a literal Nazi for using a drop of fossil fuel in your life. They'll claim objective morality, and be just as wrong as you are now.
So you lied about not being a female.
Porcupine.
Sloth.
>naturally smells like sewage
>razor sharp claws
>process would take forever
Are the people trolling the thread women seeking attention? Just trying to understand.
>morality is objective because i say so
>never mind how my opinion is relative
You are overthinking it.
If something is true, then it's true all the time. Stealing is defined as the unwanted taking of resources by one person of another person, usually by force, intimidation or secrecy. There is no coherent way to define it with exceptions. If you *want to* have your resources taken from you, like you put a chair at the end of your driveway with a "free" sign on it, then that's not stealing. That's giving or donating. It doesn't matter if the person taking your resources has a uniform on that says "IRS;" if you don't want him to take your resources, that is stealing.
It doesn't matter that recognition of private ownership or property is a cornerstone of a free society, and societies that don't recognize property rights tend to languish in tyrannical dictatorship and eventually get overtaken by a more robust civilization. From a survivalistic perspective, a civilization will benefit in the short-term by recognizing property rights of their own people, but exploiting all of the rest of the world, and if they can do it secretly, they might benefit in the long-term, as well. Morality is not concerned with survival, however.
Good enough is the enemy of perfect. Look at dinosaurs who became birds who then overspecialized so much they may as well now be a dead end that will never become more.
>Natural selection is the discovery of an objectively superior design.
lol no it isn't. Even in evolution and the steps we took to become human are filled with flaws and compromise that plague us to this day.
Yeah but the thing is, morality is relative so you're definitely wrong lmao. Go peddle your flat earth tier crap to a dumber board, like 4chan.
How can morality be universalized if it's relative? Do you think morality only applies sometimes or in certain situations? Why don't any other concepts in the universe only apply sometimes, like on Tuesdays only?
>morality only applies sometimes or in certain situations
Yes precisely. It's never been fixed, you just have a narrow view through the lens of your own culture. Sometimes slavery is okay for thousands of years, then it's not. Sometimes one race is okay for killing, sometimes they're precious. Sometimes the king is a sacred extension of God, then he's on the guillotine block.
Morality is relative. It can not be broadly universalized. The study of law has tried to make it so since we invented written language, and still our world is a fractured mess with no clear winner. All we have are basic axioms, ones which have generally shown to be beneficial. No killing, no stealing. Yet still we sometimes need to break them.
>t. room temp IQ
No, sweetie. Slavery and genocide are not sometimes OK. What religion are you? I'm willing to bet you are gnomish or Muslim.
>Slavery and genocide are not sometimes OK
According to your culture, but not according to the culture of your ancestors and not according to some extant cultures in the world today. By claiming universal morality, all you're really doing is stomping around yelling about how your personal morality is best because reasons.
Natural selection is all about change you retard. It's the admission that no design is best, and the only solution to survival is motion and experimentation.
You didn’t answer my question, sweetie.
>Morality is relative
How's Rick & Morty season 6?
I don't watch that shit and your post is not proof. You don't have any, because you're wrong.
>30 replies
>ctrl+f 'fossa'
>0 results
pretty sad for a bunch of self-professed animal dick experts
Fossa looks comfy though.
Probably like an ant or something, it would be pretty unpleasant having one crawl in and out of your ass and not being able to do anything about it
You're really good at regurgitating idioms and other nonsense wordsalad. I still have no idea why you take such exception to my post.
>So [insert complete misrepresentation of my argument]
>conclusion is "it's magic" and "you can't prove me wrong!"
>spouts memes and buzzwords to show how upset he is
>still just seething
I'm not sure why you have an axe to grind because of my post, but best advice I can offer you is, try a bit harder next time.
Rape is a word that implies the aggressor can conceptualize morality and have abstract moral principles, which animals can't do. Animals lack moral free will; they are literal slaves to their impulses and instincts.
In a rape, the aggressor is aware that it's possible for the victim to consent, but intentionally ignores their refusal -- that's what makes it a rape. A rapist is able to understand that his action is the initiation of force and therefore wrong. Animals are guided by instinct alone. They can't understand the concept of consent, nor enter into a contract even if the human victim did give their consent for the sex act. Therefore, an animal having sex with a human is not a rape, but just an attempted copulation.
Thank you middle schooler Noah how about you go moderate that dicksword server you're in now? Maybe they are posting gore there! Who knows?!
I can smell the unwashed glasses from here
Imagine hundreds of ticks in your asshole
a big male wolf. haha just imagine how awful that would be haha
Brown recluse
Tusk is such a shitty movie.
A mare haha wouldn't that be awful
Jeez yeah it would be awful to be milked dry by winking mare pussy...
dolphin because you'd be drowning while getting gangraped
A human sized tick. They procreate by stinging the female I believe. Runner up is a lantern fish that bites you then becomes a parasitic mole on your body that's pumping you with cum 24/7.
What the fuck. Can you please describe the lantern fish more? How exactly does a bite translate to that?
Oops it's called the angler fish. https://youtu.be/tTOXqDKVzA8
Okay, angler fish explains why I couldn't Google shit. That video is kino and... informative, but I can't help but feel someone has jacked off to it before.
Cats are pretty bad too. Barbed penises.
Are the "barbs" actual hard spikes or are they more like star-nosed-mole tentacles.
made of keratin; thatd hurt!
It's from a cool old show back when animal planet was about animals. It's dated now but it's called The Most Extreme.
>but I can't help but feel someone has jacked off to it before.
You.
Your mom
human
Diplodocus
A tiger
Yeah ha ha.. that would be terrible
Yeah, it actually would be, you zoophilic gay. They have spines on their cock.
Elephant