/ratanon/ - Rationalists Anonymous

Remember when /ratanon/ was good?


New Reply on thread #5253
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Reply]

[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]
Posting mode: Reply [Return]


thumbnail of (wholesome) chick rollercoaster.webm
thumbnail of (wholesome) chick rollercoaster.webm
(wholesome... webm
(1.23 MB, 640x360 vp8)
It's actually "wrong" to have sex with animals due to disease. The consent argument against bestiality is the hammer of feminism being applied to something that isn't a nail.

Because people try to cram all sexual ethics in the framework of consent, in which every bad sex act must necessarily violate consent in some way.
https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/critique-of-just-love-part-one/
Consent is a crucial heuristic that should be taken seriously. But if you treat it as the single foundation from which all other things flow you get bad results.
The only people who try very rigid consent-based ethics outside sexuality are ancaps, I guess.







 >>/5268/
Going vegetarian is easely attainable and long term.
I had no problem with dog gore and dog mutilation videos before for example but now that that I have a dog those are problematic just like normal people have problem with men shiting on babies.
There's also something sinister about the these biological replication machines get no chance whatsoever and get absolutely destroyed by a bigger non-biological automatisation.

Regarding this thread, it's ok to kill and eat animals because human survival depended on it just like it's ok and recommended for normies to dehumanize your enemies/outgroup. 
Also people ascribe different levels of intelligence and congnition to animals.
It also depends on harm, like a dude fucking a mare somewhere in a barn won't matter but a dude barebacking a squirrel or a chicken is an event with a high chance of injuring the animal.










 >>/5278/
 >>/5279/

In my defense, I spent some time picking out an image that had a featureless crotch that was merely questionable instead of explicit. There were a few nicer pictures of "fluttershy, bridle" that I would have preferred to use instead.

Thank you for not banning me desu.








 >>/5300/
I don't actually visit jp, but my previous statement is invalid since I just realised I visit tech here and lainchan has rules.
I don't know why I had that impression sorry.
I just see these types of rules broken all the time and I have the impression it is allowed.


 >>/5303/
I don't know, but there must be some reason traditional imageboard design mandates a seperation between sfw and nsfw. Do you really want to leap that fence? What horrors lurk on the other side? Chesterton is frowning at you.

My best guess is that porn is distracting.  It lessens the capacity for intellectual activity. You don't jerk off where you work - gotta keep things compartmentalised. You can't have a good discussion about literature (or traditional games, or weapons, or papercraft, or comics and cartoons, or animals and nature, or, say, the art of rationality) if the temptation to succumb to your base impulses is all around. 

Having rules also has the meta-benefit of creating a community through shared norms. We can delineate between good posters and the hated outgroup based on their behaviour. That said, I don't think rules beyond basic prohibition of informational/legal hazards are necessary here. We're few enough, obscure enough, and self-selected enough that we repel outsiders natually and all have enough in common to form a primitive community.

 >>/5304/
Good post, but possibly wrong about papercraft, considering https://archived.moe/po/thread/564878/. Art and its discussion generally tend towards the NSFW, even if most often it is in the form of non-pornographic nudity.







Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


35 replies | 6 file
New Reply on thread #5253
Max 20 files0 B total