Not really. I like his videos but I had a long 20 or so comment conversation about how his ideas of animal consent are fucking insane and disgusting. I still think he makes some great content but it really turned me off him as a person. He lost a lot of fans on his subreddit that day.
Wow, if i have to explain why that is it's not worth it. We eat meat the same way every meat eater does. It's in our nature. Fucking horses isn't really in our nature. If you want to compare how we butcher animals to rape I can kind of see where your coming. But we're animals they have evolved by eating animals.
It is no longer necessary for us to eat animals but we kill and eat them for personal pleasure. We forcibly impregnate them, put them in cages, and subject them to inhumane conditions. Raping an animal is not so far removed from the above imo.
Ok, I agree that getting pleasure from having sex with an animal is fucked up. But the act itself is not as fucked up as people pretend it is, when compared to the current conditions of many domesticated animals.
It is because it's ridiculous. What you gain from eating meat is considerably more beneficial to sex. I'm not talking about factories, I'm talking about killing animal in as much of a humane way possible and consuming it's flesh. If a hunter kills a deer with a straight shot to the head and consumes it It's not on the same level as fucking raping a deer.
The reason I'm arguing for zoophiles isn't because I think it's important for people to be able to fuck animals. I'm only arguing on behalf of them because the current laws are inconsistent with our existing set of laws and morals regarding animal welfare. I'm just asking for some goddamned consistency. That's it. Right now we throw people in jail just because the animal's semen went into their mouth instead of a sleeve to be collected for breeding. Chris Pontius even drank the horse's semen after they jerked it off in Jackass 2, but it's apparently okay because they did it for comedic effect I guess? If you're seriously going to say with a straight face that bestiality should be criminalized for the sake of the animal's well-being, then you need to stop being such a hypocrite and start using those exact same standards when regarding the meat industry, the fur industry, the leather industry, farmers, and selective breeders. If a woman belongs in jail because a she let her dog hump her vag, then Tom Green and every sperm-collecting farmer in America also belongs in jail. Are you seriously going to even pretend like the animal can tell the difference? Grow up, dude. Either both are okay, or neither are okay. I've been vegetarian for a year before and I'll gladly go back if society decides to start applying their "I actually care about animal's consent now" moral crusade with equal consistency against the meat industry. I can 100% guarantee you that society is not willing to do the same thing. People are fucking hypocrites. We have 2 standards for how we're willing to treat people and who we're willing to incarcerate. The only difference between them is their sexuality. That's not okay. That is my argument.
He is only saying that people are hypocritical about this. He is not defending sucking off dogs.
then I don't think he is defending shit. He is more criticising people being hypocritical and that no one cares about the other atrocious shit done to animals. He never says "I think people who fuck dogs are good and innocent people".
He has a plethora of comments on the subject. And of course my comment isnt from that post. He never said what i posted in that thread.
I am wholeheartedly against imprisoning those who have had non-abusive sexual relations with animals.
there's another one. So he is for bestiality if you can prove the animal likes it. LMFAO. So yea he is careful how he frames it but if you actually read his comments he definitely thinks bestiality should be legal. whether ppl eat meat or not. He just frames it like that so it's a little more palatable for ppl to talk about it.
Thank you for linking to the original video in the description so people can see the full argument, but I do not see why you left out so much of it. I stand by my controversial opinions. I do not believe that sex with animals should be encouraged, but I am wholeheartedly against imprisoning those who have had non-abusive sexual relations with animals. To say that there is no such thing is incredibly ignorant and illogical. Objective reasoning matters more to me than emotional gut responses. I do not believe in putting innocent people in jail just because "Eww, gross.".
Fucking animals is gross. That being said, I agree that it's no reason to imprison someone. I think it's disgusting, but I also wouldn't fuck a guy, or get off to that weird saran wrap fetish. If the animal is into it, no one's being emotionally harmed so I don't care, just do it in private.
It seems like you may be falling into the "Eww, gross" gut reaction where you don't like something and so want it banned. I get that. I feel the same way, but we all have to think this type of thing through or we may start building laws too subjectively (like, for example, when we outlawed Marijuana because it was too indecent, or how people are trying to prevent sex-ed classes).
It's two sides of the same coin. One side says "We can't tell if they consent, so we must require proof of consent or imprison them!" (like you say) and the other "There are definitely some times when they consent, so we must require proof of non-consent before imprisonment!" (Adam's, when he always interjects with 'unless they're being abused').
Adam's view seems to accept the risk of harming an innocent animal (ironically), whereas yours seems to accept the risk of imprisoning an innocent human.
It's a complicated debate, and as of right now the law (as with all laws) falls with the opinionated, vocal and rich. Maybe it'll change. Maybe it won't. But it's stupid to just dismiss the other side of the argument because you don't understand it or don't care to acknowledge it.
Its not that i dont care to acknowledge or understand the side. Its that you dont know if they do or dont consent considering they dont understand what is occuring. Its like saying that a child consents when they dont understamd fully what is happening.
Placing human ideas of consent on animals is fucking stupid. Fucking animals is fucking gross and should be illegal imo but it's not as simple as "They can't consent." The consent argument for animals is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen.
Tell me how the cow can consent to being milked. Tell me how a horse can consent to being ridden. Tell me how a dog can consent to being sedated, cut open, and having its uterus removed because you don't want it to have puppies, then led around by a collar for the rest of its life and only when you feel like taking it out. I don't have a problem with any of those things, but I don't see how all of these things are justified but sexual contact with an animal, even if the animal clearly enjoys it and no harm is being done, is wrong because they can't give explicit consent.
The idea of it is not something I like thinking about either, but the level of outrage seems contradictory to what most people are already okay with doing to animals with no way of actually asking for their permission or communicating their wishes.
The question isn't about what will happen to them if we don't do it, it's about consent. Current cows would not DIE if they were not lactating. I'm pretty sure we could still take care of dogs without removing their reproductive organs, but again, this is not the argument you were making. This has nothing to do with whether the dog or the cow can say they're okay with it or not.
Now we're getting too deep into sentience debates haha
If a child never grew up and forever stayed in that state of non-understanding, would it have the same significant effect on them?
If an animal initiates sex with another animal, does the other animal understand what's happening?
If an animal initiates sex with a human, does it consent?
These are important, and as of present un-answerable questions. It's important that when debating them, all people are given equal chance to voice their opinions. Shaming for defending their opinion with:
"Oh god, he even defends it in the youtube comments. WTF, never get into arguments in the youtube comments. Oh yeah, and dont suck off dogs. That's fucked up."
isn't productive. I haven't been trying to debate the point with you, I've been trying to convince you to allow the other side to debate without shame.
I like how if you scroll down far enough, you can see people saying "Oh, all these haters judging him with their gut reactions instead of putting thought into it"
I DON'T NEED TO PUT THOUGHT INTO IT. FUCKING A LITERAL ANIMAL IS DISGUSTING AND WRONG AND NO ONE SANE WOULD PUT ANY MORE THOUGHT INTO IT PAST THAT POINT. IF YOU DEFEND IT, YOU ARE A DEGENERATE PERSON OR ARE MENTALLY ILL. FUCK OFF.
AND NO ONE SANE WOULD PUT ANY MORE THOUGHT INTO IT PAST THAT POINT.
See that's a problem. I don't support Bestiality in any way, but we only disservice ourselves by not being willing to talk about things. Just because a subject is hard to talk about doesn't mean it shouldn't be talked about.
It's not a hard conversation, it's a simple conversation. This isn't a group of people arguing economic policy, this is a dude saying he wants to fuck animals.
If I talk about how we should overturn child sex laws, what are you gonna call me? Regardless of any supposed motive, what is your gut reaction going to be? What would any sane person's gut reaction be?
I mostly mean "we" as in forum goers in a Black Panther review thread. If you want to discuss against bestiality please refer to your local government where its not even a topic because why would anyone talk about legalizing bestiality
My point is we didn't bring it up. It was brought up because people in this thread are mad someone doesn't like a movie they do. Its an attempt to slander him, but then you go on to say let's not discuss it here.
Who the fuck is "we" and "you". It was an organic conversation that some random fucking guy brought up and then because people didn't know that about the reviewer they went into detail. Then it became an ethics conversation. Which all I was saying is that its an inappropriate place to have this conversation because it doesn't belong here.
That's the thing, He even outright said he's in no way a Zooaphile, he just actually tries to remain clear headed when thinking/talking about these things. It's respectable in many ways.
If you aren't vegan, why is it justifiable to eat animals against their will but not fuck them?
How are we debating these things as if they are even in the same ballpark. Its not justifiable that we are eating animals if you want to look at it in a black and white sense, but you know what? The food chains a bitch. The minute I turn my back in the wild at a hungry animal then i'm on the menu.
Why cant we fuck animals? Because we are terrible people. In the places that having sex with animals is legal they have BROTHALS where you can go have sex with animals. They don't get paid, they aren't living a lavish life. They are just tied up and waiting for a disgusting person to come in and rape them. You look at "fucking an animal" as if its a romantic night with your dog but the reality is that if it was legal it would be full of abuse.
I just cant even with people in this thread, I feel disgusted that this is even in my comment history.
So you're using a food chain argument to justify why it's okay to justify eating animals
....yes...I didnt invent the Food chain, and neither did the Government. It is a natural law. Things eat things. Do you wanna argue the ethical behavior of the T-Rex when they would eat other Dinosaurs? I mean you can but its such a stupid thing to argue.
if you were to reverse the tables would it be okay for humans to rape animals if animals had the cognitive need to rape humans?
No? The same way its not okay to fling shit at people because Monkeys do it. Dumb argument.
There has been lots of cases of dolphins raping humans, so is it okay for humans to rape dolphins?
Of course not. And what do you mean "cases of dolphins raping humans" are Dolphins grabbing people, stripping there cloth off and inserting themselves into humans? Are you mistaking dolphin molestation for rape? Is a dog humping someones leg rape?
How are we supposed to have healthy discussion on uncomfortable issues if people shut down discussion because they feel disgusted?
We can heave a healthy discussion about uncomfortable issues. But do we need to have it in a movie forum discussing a movie review of black panther? Time and place
I just think its fun to play devils advocate with people
You are really bad it at, you are nitpicking and adding hyperbole but you don't even flesh out your thoughts. Nothing you said added anything to my comment, you just picked out two lines and nitpicked. How about some depths that incite conversation, all you did was make me roll my eyes.
Why is it ok to eat animals against their will? Bc that’s how it works? They aren’t gonna let you eat them.
It’s illegal Bc ppl don’t want to live in a society where ppl are having sex with animals. It’s as simple as that. If that’s not good enough for you then whatever
So you say yourself you think it’s wrong but you need to have a justifiable reason... so what’s your reason. Or are you just bullshitting and trying to sound like a smartass?
Why is it ok to eat animals against their will? Bc that’s how it works? They aren’t gonna let you eat them.
Which is why many people have rethought that paradigm.
It’s illegal Bc ppl don’t want to live in a society where ppl are having sex with animals. It’s as simple as that. If that’s not good enough for you then whatever
So because it's gross? That's not an answer of why it's worse.
What’s your justification to fuck dogs? Bc we eat cows and chickens?
Here’s an idea for dog lickers. Why don’t you work on improving the living situation for these animals instead of saying we should be able fuck our dogs.
Animals rape each other in the wild too, but I don't see anyone defending it because it's natural.
I never said people should fuck dogs. It's exploitation of an animal, just as the meat industry is. All I'm saying is that if you want to be against exploitation, it's hypocritical to say one form is okay while one form is not. It's all bad.
Do you want to pass a law against animals raping each other? Go ahead. You can start another petition.
it's hypocritical to say one form is okay while one form is not. It's all bad.
Im a hypocrite bc i eat chicken and don't think ppl like you should be able to keep their dog as a sex slave. I'm not perfect. I bet you have some opinions that are hypocritical as well.
Adam does think it's ok. It's not just some thought experiment. No matter how he frames it.
If it were concluded in a tested environment that the animal's comfortable and there's no sign of any distress, I don't see the issue.
I am wholeheartedly against imprisoning those who have had non-abusive sexual relations with animals.
Do you want to pass a law against animals raping each other? Go ahead. You can start another petition.
What the fuck are you talking about? That has nothing to do with what I said. Are you intentionally ignoring me or do you just too thick to understand? Natural doesn't mean something is okay.
Even vegans are mostly still fine with doing things to animals without their consent. Most pet ownership involves doing things to animals without asking their permission.
I'm curious that you seem to understand all the arguments, but then end your comment with still thinking both incest and bestiality are wrong. So, why?
I checked it out when all the drama was happening a while ago. He says it kind of awkwardly but his argument boils down to "how come it's okay to make animals penetrate each other for the sake of sport/food, but it's not okay to touch a dog's penis". He's less saying it's okay and more pointing out a double standard in our culture. Wish he'd said it differently but there you go.
It's an "if this is okay, then that should be okay" argument.
He is saying, "since animal breeding is not illegal, then neither should touching a dog penis".
You are outraged at the idea that "bestiality should be legal because it's morally fine", and from what I understand Adam would agree with you on that.
94
u/-DickatAccounting- Feb 18 '18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nnNz_Tewk
im not gonna link to his reddit name but you can him defending blowing dogs and horses like 2 months ago.