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.
84
u/[deleted] Feb 18 '18 edited Feb 18 '18
[removed] — view removed comment