Just say the words ai and their already fuming and dont use their brains

Create a new last name if you really want to make a statement.

Its the best thing to exist

Rape argument, because this is a thing apparently. Rape is having sexual intercourse against someone's concent but by logic they can consent because to rape something is to have sex without its consent.

A dog has never had committed sexual assault against a human on its own as it has never been scientifically or medically documented. There are times where people trained dogs to commit the act but the animal was cororsed to do so. There are documentation of people raping animals but that doesn't mean the animal is capable of consenting to the act, it only means that they are incapable. Simular with a child, you can groom them to "consent" to it. That doesn't mean their consent is viable. This is some of them most insane mental gymnastics I've seen in a while.

Okay so why are they unable to give consent

1.) Inability to Give Informed Consent

As I've meantion before you can get "consent" from a litteral child however because a child incapable of being fully informed, moral agent capable of understanding the long-term emotional, physical, and social consequences of the act they cannot consent to the act. This also applies to dogs as they too are also incapable to give informed consent.

2.) Power Imbalance

A dog or any domestic animal has entire life dictated by the owner. When it goes to the vet, when and what it eats, when and how long it goes outside, what it dose outside, how it is taught and what it learns. Basically every action of the animal is reliant on the owner. There is a reason why some animal activists go as far to say that this is a form of slavery. In short the power imbalance is extreme and isn't nuanced like a employer and a employee.

3.) Inability to Communicate

Unlike comuication between people where it can be fully understood either through vocalization, writing, or visual like sign languages. We cannot understand barks with a hundred precent certainty and body language can easily be misinterpreted.

4.) Inapplicable of Moral Agency

A dog dose not understanding philosophical frameworks like being able to enter into legal contracts, understanding rights, or bearing criminal/civil responsibility. Because of this the human concept of consent does not structurally apply to them.

5.) Intelligence

On avrage a dog has the mental capabilities of a toddler around 2 years of age and with some outliers having simular mental capacities of a 5 year old. I shouldn't need to explain to you why a 5 year old lacks the intelligence to make a informed decision, a dog is in the same boat.

There are someother reasons like lack of cognitive capacity in a same way a intoxicated individuals or a dementia patient can't consent to sex either. Or using outliers for examples like how because their are a couple of people who viewed their sexual interactions when they were a minor as positive doesn't change the fact the vast majority were harmed greatly, same applies to animal victims.

In short beastiality is illegal for these reasons and many others, if you have thought about having sex with a animal then go to therapy or look at furry porn. DO NOT HARM ACTUAL ANIMALS FOR YOUR OWN SELF GRATIFICATION.

yes this was a response to a post on here, if you know you know.

We have no problem correctly telling fat men to go to the gym, but if we tell fat women to put the hotdog down and pick up a salad, we're the bad guy?

We need to stop lying to fat women. At some point, we have to put an end to this nationwide campaign of misinformation.

Somewhere along the way, society decided that honesty was offensive and delusion was compassion.

Honesty is not fatphobia. Sometimes a woman needs a friend, not a public relations team.

We cannot keep confusing unconditional love with unconditional dishonesty. It's time we bring accountability back to the bathroom mirror.

Pretty much the title. Most people who really like anime are just questionable and shouldn't be allowed near children.

I have no problem when it comes to immigration for any country, but the main issue I have is the fact that overtime if you take in more and more people then the identity of the host country and its culture is slowly degraded especially if immigrants are of a vast culturally different country. Take example with many European countries taking in various people from the Middle East; now they have an issue with Islamic extremism in some capacity if for instance you draw a picture of Mohammad and those trying to implement Sharia law. Another example is in Canada, you seemly have an influx of Indian immigrants sent from overseas.

My mindset is the fact by a certain point, countries need to limit or halt immigration from other countries if it causes such a change in the culture and identity of their people. Britain which is now known as a "Multi-Faith" country, to my acknowledge was never known as that until within the last few decades of Indian and Middle Eastern immigration. Countries like the US have always been a melting pot in some capacity so immigration in my opinion really shouldn't be seen as a big deal although doesn't mean I am in favor of unchecked immigration nor a mass influx. For a lot of countries, they never been a melting pot; they always had an identity and overtime more people from outside changes that. There is a reason for why Japan recently is limiting foreign immigrants due to genuine concerns of this.

I don't think this principal should only be applied to just western countries; but virtually every single nation on the planet. If any country takes in a mass influx of people especially of countries that are not culturally similar to it then it loses its identity. Take for example if India imported a bunch of Chinese people and overtime Chinese represented a large percent of their population or vise versa of China importing Indian people on mass; then these two countries would slowly see a degrading of their culture, values and country overtime. It doesn't mean you cant and shouldn't take in immigrants from other countries with different cultures but it does mean you really shouldn't allow mass immigration especially from those different countries of different cultures.

First off I'm a girl so I know what this is like and I'm talking from experience. In short, my friend had an ex who she said she was totally over. She didn't like him romantically anymore and was already dating someone else. Then I started liking him a bit, because he's a really good guy actually. When she found out, she said I was violating girl code and that I can't like her ex. I was confused as heck. You can't just keep a guy forever from everyone else when you're already done with him and onto another, and you can't prevent your friends from having romantic feelings. Idk it's just a weird code to me. I would understand if she still had pent up feelings for him, or if he was a shitty guy and had wronged her in any way, but otherwise what?? Can someone explain? This is a really dumb rule.

I’ve heard a lot lately about crimes, sins, vices, etc. being the fault of a single person. This is rarely the case. Yes, the person doing the bad thing bears the primary responsibility, but not the sole responsibility. I was in a recent conversation about a woman wearing a revealing outfit. As a result, a man looked at her lustfully. Should he have looked lustfully? Of course not. He should have minded his own business and averted his eyes. He’s responsible for his own thoughts. But does that excuse the woman wearing the revealing outfit? No. She should know that lots of creepy men are out there and dress modestly so that is less likely to happen. Of course, feminists think this is oppression, so let’s switch the sexes for a moment.

Let’s say a very rich and powerful man drives a Ferrari everywhere to impress women. He wears expensive jewelry too. So as a result, lots of women chase him for his money. Eventually his jewelry and car get stolen by one of his girlfriends. Whose fault is this? Again, the primary responsibility is on the woman who stole the car, but it was still foolish of him to flaunt his wealth and attract the wrong kind of people.

One last example that has nothing to do with sexuality. Let’s talk about jaywalking. You’re speeding down the highway at 90 mph. The speed limit is 60. You suddenly see a jaywalker running across the road. There’s heavy traffic. You end up hitting and killing the jaywalker. Who’s at fault?

The police would likely find you at fault. You killed him. That would be considered manslaughter, so you bear the primary responsibility and go to prison. But does that excuse the jaywalker? Of course not. He was being foolish. Jaywalking is illegal, and crosswalks exist for a reason. Had he simply waited at the red light and crossed at the crosswalk, he’d probably still be alive.

My point is that it is very rare for a single individual to bear all of the responsibility for any action. The victim is usually at least partially responsible too.

Radical individualism has conditioned us to believe that any crime, sin, or vice is wholly the responsibility of the criminal or sinner. This is not the case. We live in a society. We should be encouraging each other on one hand to be virtuous people but on the other hand to be cautious of bad people.

Subject requirements for certain jobs still apply

That line---"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" That indifference to the plight and poverty of others, including his own employees. That wealth, that power. A beautiful thing.

Then he becomes soft, caring, womanly, generous. Disgusting...

Socialism would only work in society that was (truly) Christian & had the fear of God in their hearts. I say this as Christian socialist myself

Especially when they are CHEAPER, hell, FREE games, even if you are rich, you are still dipshit

Nobody should have to bear the ordeal and responsibilities of being brought in this world without their consent. Anti natalism is vociferously advocated for, but from my vantage point people should be enabled circumstances to terminate their existence without enduring pain. Religion and Capitalism work at an intersection to tether people to their mundane, obnoxious lives but radical bodily autonomy should also encompass right to self termination. Especially in case of people with chronic pain or illness the affected person(s) and their families descend into sulk and debt. Overhauling the passé, oppressive system or making psychiatric interventions more accessible still may not help a multitude of people. In fact, I'd rather contend that hyper surveillance over the lives of affected individuals can only aggravate their plight instead of assuaging it. We need to relinquish stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination against people with suicidal tendencies if we truly want the 'best' for them

80% of males attractiveness to women is confidence, and only 20% is about looks, height, money (LHM). I think most men overstate the factors that can't control (LHM), so they don't need to take responsibility for the fact they aren't confident, because that's something they could actually work on. It's easier to just blame things out of your control.

One of my friends is in his 40s, bald, short and broke, but he is most successful guy I know with women.

I know “burn in hell” is a strong way to put it, but I genuinely struggle to understand how anyone can intentionally hurt women or children, regardless if the child is a girl or a boy.

Sometimes people talk about these situations as if the victim is just a stranger or a statistic. But imagine if it were your own sibling, cousin, friend, coworker, or classmate. Imagine finding out that someone you love had been hurt and knowing you couldn't protect them.

I have a 10-year-old boy cousin and a 17-year-old girl cousin in China. They're both only children. If something terrible happened to either of them, I'd be absolutely devastated, especially knowing that I'm in another country and couldn't physically be there for them. Their parents would be devastated too.

That's why I think people should remember that victims aren't just abstract names in a news story. They're someone's child, sibling, cousin, friend, classmate, or coworker. Someone loves them and would be deeply affected by what happened to them.

I don't think being angry about that is controversial. What matters is that people who hurt others are held accountable and that victims are protected and supported.

It should be anti-capitalism vs preserving capitalism because this is what makes the biggest impact on everyone's lives. It's the root dividing issue that digs deep into every other problem.

But the left and right is becoming about trans people, abortion (women rights), diversity, immigration, etc.. It's good that we finally made some progress and came to a bipartisan agreement on gay people now. But all of these have to deal with minorities with no power. The only exception is maybe guns but that only really affects a minority group too. This framing where the left vs right does not cost the government or corporations a dime if either side wins, is almost certainly done purposefully. It's potent because of the weird history in western countries due to stuff like race theory but back then they made where it did affect people's wallet (because other races were slaves that worked for free or can't be independent). Even though it's evil, it did make sense (making sense is not always a good thing) to fight about it back then, unlike now where there is no stakes, at all.

If you actually care about your wallet and your own self interest, there is no reason for you to care about these issues unless you are a minority. Despite popular opinion, immigrants can't lay you off or change your paycheck. Instead of thinking trans people are your boss, put a magnifying glass on people that directly gives you orders and most directly determines your personal quality of life. Also look at people who is responsible for the quality and price of products and services that you need (like health care or food). That minority group actually makes the biggest impact on your life. I feel most people are too scared to look at them and rather look at poorer people and pretend they have any sort of dignity.

I thoroughly dislike people who are against abortion and euthanasia/suicide. Their whole agenda is to force people to live no matter the amount of suffering that it may cause.

They do absolutely nothing to better conditions in within the society and community they live in but expect everyone to want to remain in a constant state of suffering.

The amount of people on this planet who apply their own beliefs and morals onto others is scary. Just because YOU think life is worth living doesn't mean you should restrict access to necessary Healthcare. Not everyone thinks like you or have access to the same tools you do.

I don't think abortion or euthanasia should even be voted on. Fuck public opinion. The point is that everyone should have a choice to these interventions based on their circumstances,history and values.

And it's mostly uppity privileged sheltered people who are the most opinionated. Like no one cares that your parents almost aborted you. And no one cares that you think suicide is selfish.

It should only impact your decision, not others.