Debate user @PoweraHuskCryonon the subtle differences between a femboi and a troon

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
So what I'm getting from this is
If I was a retard on the scale of @Retard of the Month and powerleveled about said retardation too hard
Damage control would be as easy as using a sock account to start a debate about animal rights and veganism in my thread to bury the discussion


Some people do have pigs, but that is the exception. As a rule or principle they are livestock, so it is different.
There's something deeply funny about a halal being derailed with an argument about eating pork.
 
Seeing a retard that does retarded shit and falling into the middle school level misanthropy of "animals good because they don't post on computer" is incredibly stupid and ignorant to how most animals exist in nature. If you're a misanthrope that believes humanity should be wiped out because of the existence of a few retards, please start with yourself.

Just as an example cats are cute and wonderful animals, but some can also be almost psychopathic in their cruelty to other animals(torturing mice for the pleasure) and rape is generally how most animals breed in the wild. Cats are the second animal(dolphins are first) I imagine setting up a torture porn website if they had the ability.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Retard of the Month
Seeing a retard that does retarded shit and falling into the middle school level misanthropy of "animals good because they don't post on computer" is incredibly stupid and ignorant to how most animals exist in nature. If you're a misanthrope that believes humanity should be wiped out because of the existence of a few retards, please start with yourself.

Just as an example cats are cute and wonderful animals, but some can also be almost psychopathic in their cruelty to other animals(torturing mice for the pleasure) and rape is generally how most animals breed in the wild. Cats are the second animal(dolphins are first) I imagine setting up a torture porn website if they had the ability.
"No cat has ever called me a Nigger"
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: DOUBLE_WHEEL
This seems very arbitrary. Either killing the animal is wrong or not. The difference between going to prison and winning a hunting competition shouldn't be whether you eat it or crack a smile.
In my opinion it is wrong, but it's an evil that can be justified by circumstances such as self-defense or gaining food; as I said, I'm a moral relativist so I believe that moral value of an act depends on the context of this act.
Hunting for fun is beyond my comprehension and people who do it are on the same level as vocal LGBT activists in terms of "would I leave a child alone with this person" (that is, very, very low).

We're inherently more valuable. From an Atheistic perspective we're more intelligent and higher up the food chain, it's the natural order, so we have more value. From a Christian perspective we're also more valuable because God set us above animals.
I asked about quality that is valuable, if it's not innocence.
If you get a chance, read Vonnegut's "Galápagos" - it provides an interesting perspective on intelligence and hierarchy in the food chain.
 
In my opinion it is wrong, but it's an evil that can be justified by circumstances such as self-defense or gaining food; as I said, I'm a moral relativist so I believe that moral value of an act depends on the context of this act.
Hunting for fun is beyond my comprehension and people who do it are on the same level as vocal LGBT activists in terms of "would I leave a child alone with this person" (that is, very, very low).
Moral relativism is a whole can of worms in itself, but almost all hunting in the modern world is in a sense for fun now since it's not strictly necessary anymore. People largely hunt because they enjoy the act, it's why we have competitions, hunting video games, clubs, etc.

You don't have to like hunting culture or anything, but it's a far cry from LGBT predators who explicitly want to harm children, and drawing any comparison there is something that I can't comprehend.

I asked about quality that is valuable, if it's not innocence.
If you get a chance, read Vonnegut's "Galápagos" - it provides an interesting perspective on intelligence and hierarchy in the food chain.
I said it's an inherent value. That's what humans have. Innocence alone isn't the only value or it wouldn't matter if immoral people were mistreated or killed, such as prostitutes. They matter because they're people.

I'll check it out, I'm not much of a reader though.
 
You don't have to like hunting culture or anything, but it's a far cry from LGBT predators who explicitly want to harm children, and drawing any comparison there is something that I can't comprehend.
I wouldn't want a child to learn that having sex with an adult is fun and I wouldn't want a child to learn that killing is fun. Both can turn out to be decent people who wouldn't try anything like it but the risk in both cases is, in my opinion, relatively high.

I said it's an inherent value. That's what humans have. Innocence alone isn't the only value or it wouldn't matter if immoral people were mistreated or killed, such as prostitutes. They matter because they're people.
I can't know for sure because I never was in such situation but I think it would be easier for me to work as an executioner and execute a convicted murderer than it would be to shoot an animal.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't want a child to learn that having sex with an adult is fun and I wouldn't want a child to learn that killing is fun. Both can turn out to be decent people who wouldn't try anything like it but the risk in both cases is, in my opinion, relatively high.
But killing animals is alright in the context of hunting. There is no context where adults and children having sex is alright. It should be taught that they're incomparable even if you oppose hunting because animals have less value than people; using kids for pleasure is not equal to hunting for pleasure.

Again, even if you oppose both they're not even on the same plane of existence in terms of severity of offense. Trophy hunting would be the equivalent of jaywalking or littering in comparison. Maybe I'd say if a species is endangered or something like that then maybe it's more of an issue than it otherwise would be though.
 
But killing animals is alright in the context of hunting. There is no context where adults and children having sex is alright. It should be taught that they're incomparable even if you oppose hunting because animals have less value than people; using kids for pleasure is not equal to hunting for pleasure.
I find both those acts be as far away from my own moral principles that I wouldn't trust people engaging in them. If it makes any sense, the moral judgement of the act (pedophilia is much worse than hunting or poaching) is different than moral judgement of the person enjoying the act (both rape and killing for fun are reprehensible).
And if you look at it, both killing for pleasure and rape are embracing and indulging most animalistic part of human nature, sending one's humanity to the back seat.
 
I find both those acts be as far away from my own moral principles that I wouldn't trust people engaging in them.
You wouldn't trust a hunter...? I mean a farmer is essentially a hunter on easy mode, do you trust farmers? I suspect a lot of them probably enjoy their work too, probably even take pride in it.

Remember, we don't need to eat meat, killing animals is not necessary. Veganism isn't truly viable, but vegetarianism is a healthy, sustainable long-term diet. If you aren't a vegetarian then I find this to be hypocritical.

If it makes any sense, the moral judgement of the act (pedophilia is much worse than hunting or poaching) is different than moral judgement of the person enjoying the act (both rape and killing for fun are reprehensible).
I'd need you to elaborate a bit more, but I think I might agree if I'm understanding correctly.

And if you look at it, both killing for pleasure and rape are embracing and indulging most animalistic part of human nature, sending one's humanity to the back seat.
LGBT go against nature, both by beings fags and child predators. At least rape, barbaric as it may be to civilized society, served a natural purpose. We're all here because someone at some point was raped in caveman days. Nobody's here because a dude coomed in a dude's pooper or diddled a kid, and certainly not because someone drugged and mutilated one.

Hunting for pleasure is not against nature. You see animals do this all the time, in much more vicious ways.

The crux of my point is we need to really highlight the stark differences here.
 
Cats rape cats constantly
While I love cats (by and large) and they have superior senses in some ways to humasn (scent and hearing is better, sight arguably better) they like other animals really do not consent or not consent the people do, with mating regulated by pheromones, being in heat, etc. Cats do not rape as that concept is unique to humans (well at least some humans)
There's something deeply funny about a halal being derailed with an argument about eating pork.
What on earth would possess you to characterize this as an argument about eating pork, when that was an incidental to a distinction between someone kiling livestock in a legitimate way versus someone induling in gratuitous or sadistic killing.
The difference between going to prison and winning a hunting competition shouldn't be whether you eat it or crack a smile.

People largely hunt because they enjoy the act, it's why we have competitions, hunting video games, clubs, etc.

But killing animals is alright in the context of hunting.
Why are you harping on hunting. No one is talking about hunting being subject to severe criminal penalties or any penalties at all,

Btw even if someone cares about human life so much more, people who kill defenseless animals have many of the traits of serial killers. I will remind you of Luka Magnotta, that fucking troon that put a cat in blender. There is no reason why things like that should be treated lightly.
 
Cats do not rape as that concept is unique to humans (well at least some humans)
That's not true, humans are certainly not the only ones who rape, we're just the only ones who feel bad about it and are morally responsible for our actions.

Why are you harping on hunting.
Because if the claim is "killing animals is wrong" then hunting is wrong. You can come up with arbitrary subjective caveats to insist upon such as "it's to eat" or "but they're not pets", yet I can shoot those down like a hunter shooter down prey.

Btw even if someone cares about human life so much more, people who kill defenseless animals have many of the traits of serial killers.
It depends on the context. If you've got a torture den like Jeffery Dahmer did, yes. If you just blow away some pests, hunt for fun, etc then no.

There's a world of difference between the former and the latter despite both "killing defenseless animals". And remember, we don't need to eat meat, so you're a hypocrite if you eat your eggs with bacon.
 
yet I can shoot those down like a hunter shooter down prey.
Except you haven't.
If you just blow away some pests, hunt for fun, etc then no. (emphasis added)
See those words I highlighted, they ae important as they highlight important distinction. Pests, ie animals that are a nuisances, are different. There is a reason to kill them. Usually you need a license to do that but it depends on locality. The word "hunt" denotes a particular context of wild animal. Not what I or anyone else is talking about here.
 
You wouldn't trust a hunter...? I mean a farmer is essentially a hunter on easy mode, do you trust farmers? I suspect a lot of them probably enjoy their work too, probably even take pride in it.
Remember I'm talking from the perspective of moral relativism. The act is the same but context is different. If you kill to eat or to feed others - it's fine. If you kill because you enjoy it - it's not fine, if you kill because you enjoy the act of killing and then eat or feed others - somewhere in-between, it's fine but you're fucked in the head.

Remember, we don't need to eat meat, killing animals is not necessary. Veganism isn't truly viable, but vegetarianism is a healthy, sustainable long-term diet. If you aren't a vegetarian then I find this to be hypocritical.
I never said I consider myself to be a good person. I'm sure it's not the only thing that I consider to be morally wrong but still benefit from.

LGBT go against nature, both by beings fags and child predators.
If they are fags, I don't care. If no living being is hurt by an act, for me the act holds no moral value, neither positive nor negative. It may be distasteful to bystanders but so is modern architecture. Child predators by their nature hurt people. I wouldn't equate those two.

At least rape, barbaric as it may be to civilized society, served a natural purpose. We're all here because someone at some point was raped in caveman days.
Even animals have complex mating rituals to attract partners and have consensual sex. If you are trying to say that one adult person raping another adult person is morally better than two fags engaging in consensual sex, I'd say that's quite twisted.
 
Except you haven't.
I disagree.

See those words I highlighted, they ae important as they highlight important distinction. Pests, ie animals that are a nuisances, are different.
It's an arbitrary distinction and matter of opinion as to what exactly constitutes a pest, and you'll find plenty who think they shouldn't be killed. Ask PETA.

Usually you need a license to do that but it depends on locality. The word "hunt" denotes a particular context of wild animal. Not what I or anyone else is talking about here.
So let me get this straight. If someone kills a wild cat you give them a thumbs up, but if it's a domesticated cat then they are subjected to Saw film style tortures? Am I understanding this correctly?

If you kill to eat or to feed others - it's fine.
But why is it fine? As established, this is not necessary, so these kills are simply borne of desire, not need.

To put it concisely, you're saying taking pleasure in eating an animal you didn't need to kill is fine, but only if don't take pleasure in the kill itself. However, if the animal is so valuable then we shouldn't needlessly kill it solely for the pleasure of eating it, right? I don't see how that's much better.

I never said I consider myself to be a good person. I'm sure it's not the only thing that I consider to be morally wrong but still benefit from.
Fair enough.

If they are fags, I don't care. If no living being is hurt by an act, for me the act holds no moral value, neither positive nor negative. It may be distasteful to bystanders but so is modern architecture. Child predators by their nature hurt people. I wouldn't equate those two.
The overlap is immense, but I'm not equating the two, the latter is clearly far worse than the former. You brought up human nature though, and suggested parts of it aren't desirable, and I'm just saying the same about fags.

Even animals have complex mating rituals to attract partners and have consensual sex. If you are trying to say that one adult person raping another adult person is morally better than two fags engaging in consensual sex, I'd say that's quite twisted.
Complex mating rituals do exist in nature, so does rape, so that doesn't change anything.

Consenting faggotry is slightly less immoral, but my point was it at least served a natural purpose. If you're into moral relativism then I'd expect you to appreciate it considering you wouldn't be here right now otherwise. Consequentialism is tied up with moral relavitism, after all.
 
But why is it fine? As established, this is not necessary, so these kills are simply borne of desire, not need.

To put it concisely, you're saying taking pleasure in eating an animal you didn't need to kill is fine, but only if don't take pleasure in the kill itself. However, if the animal is so valuable then we shouldn't needlessly kill it solely for the pleasure of eating it, right? I don't see how that's much better.
You need to eat something, otherwise you'll die. There are very few - if any - things you can eat without destroying or exploiting some form of life. And if you must destroy or exploit a form of life to survive, why not at least make it be tasty, balanced and nutritious?

The overlap is immense, but I'm not equating the two, the latter is clearly far worse than the former. You brought up human nature though, and suggested parts of it aren't desirable, and I'm just saying the same about fags.
For me faggotry - if we're talking about just sex\relationships between two consenting adults, not the cultural impact - doesn't have neither positive nor negative moral value as it brings neither good nor harm to the outside world.

Consenting faggotry is slightly less immoral, but my point was it at least served a natural purpose.
Are you suggesting that all heterosexual intercourses serve procreation?

If you're into moral relativism then I'd expect you to appreciate it considering you wouldn't be here right now otherwise. Consequentialism is tied up with moral relavitism, after all.
The intention wasn't to bring me here, the intention was to indulge themselves, I am a very distant side effect of their self-indulgence and that's the context of what they did.
I greatly enjoy existing but I have no problem condemning my distant ancestors for their actions.
 
You need to eat something, otherwise you'll die. There are very few - if any - things you can eat without destroying or exploiting some form of life. And if you must destroy or exploit a form of life to survive, why not at least make it be tasty, balanced and nutritious?
It's a bit of a shift in the goalpost to go from killing to exploitation, isn't it?

For me faggotry - if we're talking about just sex\relationships between two consenting adults, not the cultural impact - doesn't have neither positive nor negative moral value as it brings neither good nor harm to the outside world.
That's under the narrow, idealistic, incorrect view of "homosexuals are just like heterosexuals", but we should know that's not true in 2024 for God's sake.

Are you suggesting that all heterosexual intercourses serve procreation?
That's its purpose. Not all food you eat serves you to a nutritional benefit, but that's still the purpose of eating.

The intention wasn't to bring me here, the intention was to indulge themselves
Perhaps if only considering the conscious desire, but mating instincts go well beyond that.

I greatly enjoy existing but I have no problem condemning my distant ancestors for their actions.
If you had a time machine would you prevent it from occurring?
 
@SSj_Ness. I am not even reading all that. I don't think there is a state in the union or anywhere in the Western world that has difficulty making the legal distinctions between hunting, killing pests and vermin versus what I am talking about. You either get it or you don't.
 
It's a bit of a shift in the goalpost to go from killing to exploitation, isn't it?
Sometimes exploitation can be worse than quick death. Look at the facilities producing eggs on industrial scale.

That's under the narrow, idealistic, incorrect view of "homosexuals are just like heterosexuals", but we should know that's not true in 2024 for God's sake.
If they do weird and disgusting stuff in their own circle and don't involve anybody who doesn't want to be involved I still don't care. For you it's outrageous, for me it's just funny - because shoving things up the butt... and butt is where poop comes from... and poop stinks... so it's funny, lol, nobody should be doing it, nobody likes stinky things.

If you had a time machine would you prevent it from occurring?
Aside from creating a paradox (if I erased myself, there would be no me to prevent it), no. Such action would erase other people I deeply care about and I'll always pick a loved one over a stranger. Additionally, as I said, I don't consider myself to be a very good and selfless person and I enjoy existing.
 
Back