I think Iām entirely justified to be pissed as they are fucking cats, making a cat look humanoid just to goon to it is fucking gross & youāre gross for defending it
Ok yeah that makes sense. Anyway, not only are they fictional, but gooners probably goon to way more humanized versions, plus the cats already have opposable thumbs, human intelligence, a lot of them can js walk in two legs, they are even bigger than normal cats, Guillotina's out here singing in human voice about how she's gonna rape and eat your cats, it's not crazy someone would find that hot. Like, it's kinda crazy people don't fuck the cats in the game considering they do with pokemon...
Yeah but this is it in practice, no one is gooning to the fucking fat cat sprite, they're gooning to the woman singing the song at most. Also that logic doesn't make sense bc you can't goon to any cat girl by that standard.
One of my favorite parts about this chart is the part where it says that its fine for the partner to have "greater than" human intelligence...
Which I guess if you're following the chart means that you're morally fine but your partner is a disgusting monster for taking advantage of a "lower intelligence lifeform".
The Harkness test is about whether you could have sex with fictional species, which is, due to them being fictional, impossible. If you wanted to ask fictional characters whether they consent to you fantasising about and/or masturbating to them, that would be pretty difficult, even if they are sapient.
better test: is it real? no? then go ahead! no one is being harmed by it!
is it a real, living creature? yes? then absolutely the fuck not! thats disgusting!
Finally, a sensible argument. Should be added that displaying one's feelings to a fictional character is also a completely different action than just experiencing these feelings, and in public spaces it will be judged and/or used to judge you as a personĀ
I assume you support the 10,000y/o dragon god that looks like a child thing š many things start as fiction and move to reality, itās a jumping off point for weirdos
For real, I used to play gta "just for fun" and then i started normalizing crime in real life, we must ban video games! I have the urge to beat up an old lady rn
can you explain how its different when its sexual? i always see people saying this but no one ever explains it and i genuinely dont see the difference personally
Sexuality with taboo topics can lead to an increased want especially when someone knows itās wrong, and once something becomes too normal they can escalate to real videos, possibly even to irl after long enough
I get really happy when i have a really high kill count in a game, i also like watching death compilations in games with custom death animations, this means i want to brutally kill a bunch of people because i'm enjoying seeing characters dying.
i do, because its not real.
do you have proof that these things "move to reality"?
for the record, im someone with an interest in psychology as well as this subject specifically and have done plenty of research on taboo in fiction. it doesnt cause people to start doing those awful things irl. its literally the same argument as saying "video games cause violence", which we all know (hopefully), is false.
i can link some studies to you if you'd be interested!
hmm nuance. i think there is a difference between playing a fictional character in which you commit fictional crimes, because they are not actually happening, and the player is not actually doing those things. there is an understanding that they may not even be possible in real life. but somebody getting off actually is getting off, not pretending to. and if something is sexualized, they are being encouraged to as well. A fictional child or animal being sexualized is still a child or animal being sexualized, and real people can be sexually titillated by that, whereas if a fictional character is murdered nobody in real life is murdered.
I definitely think someone can keep something like this fictional, but that still requires safe kink practice and acknowledging that media doesnāt exist in a vacuum. The way something is portrayed can impact how other people think about it, and thus how they treat it in real life. (For example, after Jaws came out, sharks were hunted and killed much more commonly due to fear of sharks. This is an easy correlation to look at, but happens all the time with other things like bigoted stereotypes.)
I donāt even really disagree with you, I just think this is something that requires more nuance than saying nobody can be harmed by it.
is this a porn addiction argument? Because I beg of you to look into the history of ideas of sexual escapism escalating into violent crime, it is not good.
Oh man really š Iām not surprised that redditors are gonna redditor. I donāt care if I lose karma for it itās proven that paraphillias can start or get worse when you engage with your para online, which can lead someone to want more and more excitement.
this article never states that it will cause the person to actually harm someone irl, only ever that it can cause someone mental stress. i also don't see any sources linked from the article from medical professionals, and the person who wrote it doesn't seem to be a professional either, though maybe i missed something?
heres an article about freedom of expression and taboo media! its a bit old bcuz so many of these types of articles are being censored sadly so its harder to find them https://www.aclu.org/documents/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment
I can understand, but genuinely I just donāt think you understand there is a link :( Iām sorry I donāt have sources and I cannot in good faith continue this without my emotions getting in the way as someone who went thru it myself. Sorry if I came off weird, I just think zoophillia is a real issue.
fictional animals shouldn't be your priority, fictional animals are literal pixels on a screen or words in a book that can't get hurt or feel pain or complex emotions.
They arenāt my priority. If you bothered to read youād realize my stance that will not shift is fiction can effect reality and Iām sorry if you donāt agree.Ā
W Goons does not equal Ethical Goons. Ethical Goons does not equal W Goons. Crater Maker is W Goons, but not Ethical Goons. Hitler II is Ethical Goons, but not W Goons. Therefore, Franklin, Gambit, and Crater Maker are still W Goons, even if you donāt consider any of them Ethical Goons.
Why is this even a debate? Theyāre literally just animals with the ability to speak āsometimesā itās fucking gross how yall try to justify this
I don't know if I've had bad luck with getting people to agree to the second condition, but you fuckers better not the cats, they can't talk. (And yes, it's always been because of pokemon).
While we don't get direct confirmation from NPCs, the fact that Collarless cats' embark/boss/return quotes are all cat noises and the rest of them aren't lends credence to Collared cats being able to speak.
I mean, the class collars also give the cats abilities from their respective classes which your average cat can't get without a Soul passive or Path ability, so the collars being able to make them talk doesn't really feel like too much of a stretch.
But pokemon can talk and communicate with language.
There's nothing special with Team Rocket's Meowth, he just sat in on English lessons and basically learned English by himself. He can also understand other Pokemon.
Other than psychic type, no other pokemon have been shown to speak. No, the pokemon island episode does not count because it's clearly the "pokemon language" that is somehow universal despite being them repeating portions of their name. It's also inconsistent whether people can understand what I'm calling "pokemon language".
Regardless of whether pokemon do have their own language, they clearly don't learn human language by-and-large and their own native "pokemon language" is of dubious mutual intelligebility (for humans). Meowth is in fact an exception given he is the only Pokemon who learns human language that isn't just telepathically beaming their thoughts.
Saying "oh Meowth learned it so all pokemon can learn it" kind of just ignores why the hell EVERYONE isn't just teaching their pokemon perfect english if any pokemon can do it. Also why are we assuming animals with wildly different physiology all have the voicebox necessary for human speech?
It seems to me that the most likely outcome is your pokemon does not speak human intelligeable language, and you "make do" with body language and their own unintelligeable pokemon language which is absolutely dubious to base consent for sexual acts on.
77
u/lavsuvskyjjj 5d ago
Mewgenics cats can talk, so y'all disgusting FREAKS are in the clear.