[–]▶ No.92679>>92682 >>92824 >>93155 >>93398 >>94016 >>95530 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
Why is it that god created weird attractions? Like my fucking goodness, I don't want to get slapped in the balls for having a picture of Judy Hopps or Nick Wilde on my phone or something.
My mother would be like "OH! You want to molest a little bunny rabbit girl and fox little boy?!" or something as hurtful as the act of god strucking lighting down onto your mortal soul known as your husky shell in this planet we call earth.
▶ No.92681>>92684
>>92680
Only children or those with poor memory do not believe in a god. Get a few more years under your belt son
▶ No.92682>>95320 >>95527
>>92679 (OP)
I think Christians derive their deontological ethics (shall nots) from teleology (universe design). Long ago someone thought, "We are designed to have children therefore doing things that diverge from this are bad." Hence, homosexuality and bestiality are wrong, not because of the act, but because they don't produce children. But, I think in some context, they do have purpose. Homosexuality may further social bonding. Bestiality may introduce new genetics into the pool.
I believe in teleoNOMY (the thought that due to complex systems, things only appear to have purpose).
Your attraction to cute animals may be a survival trait among animals. Cute animals are usually cared for by humans. Having a source of free food is great for survival.
▶ No.92684>>93436 >>95320 >>95527
>>92681
there is no sky daddy faggot.
▶ No.92685>>92686 >>93375
>>92680
Someone gave me a communicator watch and said I could talk to God with it. What should I say?
▶ No.92686>>92689
>>92685
"Do you believe in God?"
▶ No.92689>>92692 >>92693 >>92694 >>92780
>>92686
That's a complicated question, it depends on what you mean, by god.
▶ No.92692>>92755
>>92689
It is an ontological question. Does existence require creation? If God exists, was God created? If so, who created God?
▶ No.92693
▶ No.92694>>92755
▶ No.92755>>92808
>>92694
It helps no one to be reductive, I believe that, we are here, implies, to some degree, that there are forces larger than us. Now, we can get into the semanticalities of-
>>92692
Memes aside, I don't really believe in the "found in the bible" version of god, nor any other religion really. They all have something of a similar basis and stricture, that being "worship this god, and by proxy those who lead the church/uphold the word and teachings of this god, or else you'll be killed and/or suffer for all eternity in some specific firey hellscape." Stuff like that was clearly devised in order to obtain power and control over a mass looking for answers.
On the otherhand, however, I also don't really buy the idea that everything just "happened" one day, and all of this just came into being by pure scientific happenstance. So to some degree I do believe there's "forces larger than us" at play.
▶ No.92780>>92813
>>92689
O God the Lord, the strength of my salvation, thou hast covered my head in the day of battle.
▶ No.92808
>>92755
I've read, and liked, the notion that the original message was, "the Creator (whatever/whoever you call that) loves you, and you'll have more after this life is through," and the early organized churches realized that modifying it to "the Creator loves you, but you're disconnected for some reason; you can be reconnected, but only if you follow our rules and have us show you the way" could be a vehicle for money and control. They came, they looked at the road, and they built themselves a toll booth on it.
▶ No.92814
>>92813
>[science 40/100] uh, did you try turning it off and on again?
>[speech 10/100] I'm not sure what you're trying to say
>[intimidate] So what if I did, got a problem? toughguy?
>[bluff] (pretend you don't speak english)
>[misdirect] new card, whaddya think?
▶ No.92815
>Why is it that god created weird attractions?
▶ No.92824
>>92679 (OP)
>God did it
You created yourself.
▶ No.92873>>93430
The only thing more funny to me than regular furries with weird kinks are furries with weird kinks and puritanical religions. It's like seeing a closeted senator talking about the ethics of stuff surrounding gays.
▶ No.93155
>>92679 (OP)
post some cub nick and cub judy getting fucked and/or cum inflated if possible
▶ No.93375>>93527
>>92685
You don’t need a watch. You can just pray bro.
This post was made by the theistic gang
▶ No.93398
>>92679 (OP)
Ummmm, it's actually the influence of Satan? Like, obviously.
▶ No.93430
>>92873
Spend two months in a country dominated by Islam. Then come back to the west and bow the fuck down for a follower of a "puritanatal" religion and thank him for not treating furries the way Muslims treat furries.
▶ No.93472
▶ No.93497>>93508 >>93509 >>93510
▶ No.93508>>93509 >>93510 >>93512 >>93519
>>93497
>If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.
Well, okay, let's look at who Francis Bacon was, and whether he is considered a "reliable authority": https://infogalactic.com/info/Francis_Bacon
>English philosopher and statesman, who served as Attorney General, and as Lord Chancellor of England. His works are credited with developing the scientific method, and remained influential through the scientific revolution.
>Bacon has been called the father of empiricism.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Empiricism
<Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions; empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.
<Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a prior reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
<Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification." One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.
>His works argued for the possibility of scientific knowledge based only upon inductive and careful observation of events in nature. Most importantly, he argued this could be achieved by use of a skeptical and methodical approach whereby scientists aim to avoid misleading themselves. While his own practical ideas about such a method, the Baconian method (https://infogalactic.com/info/Baconian_method), did not have a long lasting influence, the general idea of the importance and possibility of a skeptical methodology makes Bacon the father of scientific method. This marked a new turn in the rhetorical and theoretical framework for science, the practical details of which are still central in debates about science and methodology today.
Okay, so Francis Bacon is the one who created the entire scientific process that is used today to determine what we consider to be "factual".
But, then again, the guy died almost 400 years ago. what about more recent figures? Well, there's William James, the first educator to teach psychology in America, and considered to be one of the biggest influences on philosophy.
>The turbulent billows of the fretful surface leave the deep parts of the ocean undisturbed; and to him who has a hold on vaster and more permanent realities, the hourly vicissitudes of his personal destiny seem relatively insignificant things. The really religious person is accordingly unshakable and full of equanimity, and calmly ready for any duty that the day may bring forth.
But, then again, Stephen Hawking said that Philosophy is dead, so no reason to ever use any philosophers as a source. Oh, how about Alexis Carrel, the Nobel Prize winning French doctor who pioneered all of today's vascular suture techniques, the use of antibiotics, and organ transplants.
>Prayer is the most powerful form of energy one can generate. It is a force as real as terrestrial gravity. As a physician, I have seen men, after all other therapy had failed, lifted out of disease and melancholy by the serene effort of prayer. … Prayer like radium is a source of luminous, self-generating energy. … In prayer, human beings seek to augment their finite energy by addressing themselves to the Infinite source of all energy. When we pray, we link ourselves with the inexhaustible motive power that spins the universe. We pray that a part of this power be apportioned to our needs. Even in asking, our human deficiencies are filled and we arise strengthened and repaired. … Whenever we address God in fervent prayer, we change both soul and body for the better. It could not happen that any man or woman could pray for a single moment without some good result.
However, he also believed that cells in the body could divide indefinitely, so I guess that makes him an unreliable source.
▶ No.93509>>93510 >>93512 >>93519
>>93508
>>93497
How about someone who actually has done extensive research in the field of psychology and helped hundreds of people with proven methods, such as Carl Jung.
<During the past thirty years, people from all the civilised countries of the earth have consulted me. I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among all my patients in the second half of life-that is to say, over thirty-five-there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook.
Or, does he not count because he dared to call out Freud for the hack that he was with trying to found some way to explain and justify his mother complex?
I guess, in some ways, there is no "valid sources", so we might as well be quoting complete nobodies, such as the psychologist Henry C. Link: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.264624/page/n5
>My return to religion was not due to the depression, although that trying period served to project certain facets into holder relief. It was not due to old age and approaching senility which often play strange tricks with the mind; ... My return to religion was not due to misfortune or to disappointments with the affairs of life; ... Indeed, there has been nothing sensational or dramatic in my conversion, if I may call it such. There was no great experience, no emotional cataclysm, and no dazzling revelation, which marked the change of which I write. The change was a gradual one, of which I was for a long time unaware. It was due entirely to the routine experiences encountered in the practice of my profession, psychology.
▶ No.93510>>93512 >>93519
>>93509
>>93508
>>93497
However, all these people have talked about is whether religion is important, not if God actually exists. But, isn't that a faulty argument to begin with in the first place? You cannot prove that something doesn't exist:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Evidence_of_absence
Therefore, anyone trying to say that "God doesn't exist" has already shot themselves in the foot. However, what one can say is, "Is there evidence showing the existence of a God?" That's the question people should be asking.
▶ No.93512>>93517
>>93509
>>93508
>>93510
Save it for /christian/ or /r/atheism bud.
▶ No.93517>>93891
>>93512
>/christian/
Wasn't that board conquered by the Catholics, and the fags who reside there are even further up their ass than the usual followers (Which isn't really saying much)?
▶ No.93519
>>93509
>>93508
>>93510
You missed the entire point you nigger, claiming god exists just because some authority says so does not constitue evidence, next time read the fucking links, even if they are from wikipedia.
▶ No.93527
>>93375
But...I don't...have anything to say. Here, n-now you can talk to God!
▶ No.93532
just accept your a pedo anon
▶ No.93891
>>93517
You're just upset that they think /pol/ is more suited to Islam than Christianity.
▶ No.94016
>>92679 (OP)
i want to molest a little bunny rabbit girl
▶ No.95320>>95385 >>95527
>>92682
>Bestiality may introduce new genetics into the pool.
That's retarded, you can't breed a human and a chimpanzee, much less a human and an even farther removed species. Stop trying to rationalize your degeneracy, you sick fuck.
> Homosexuality may further social bonding.
Sex offenders do the exact opposite by inspiring paranoia and preying on the vulnerable.
>>92684
Nobody cares.
▶ No.95385>>95397 >>95441 >>95448 >>95524 >>95527
>>95320
It is true that human gametes cannot fertilize or be fertilized by those of other species. But the idea that this can happen is not fundamentally retarded. Other species are capable of cross breeding.
Homosexuality was identified by military commanders in ancient Europe as being a much more powerful unifying force than nationality or even being from the same village. It can certainly benefit the odds of survival of a group.
Sex offenses against children (and adults), on the other hand, are less frequently motivated by sexual urges than by a desire to control or harm someone. It’s not exactly correct to say “gays are more likely to molest children than straight people.”
Evidence may suggest that, but replace “gay” with “oppressed” and it makes more sense when you wonder why an offender would be driven to harm or control others. Gays have been persecuted for centuries and still are in most of the world.
▶ No.95397>>95400
>>95385
Shut up and get in the oven faggot.
▶ No.95400>>95432
>>95397
You must have been on the debate team in school.
Wake up, friend. The ovens have been cold for half a century. It’s a museum now. Your kind are almost all gone from this world.
Leave that shit behind and grow with us.
▶ No.95432
>>95400
Make the ovens hot again.
▶ No.95441>>95458
>>95385
> Other species are capable of cross breeding.
Species that don't include us. Your point is invalid.
>Homosexuality was identified by military commanders in ancient Europe as being a much more powerful unifying force than nationality or even being from the same village. It can certainly benefit the odds of survival of a group.
AIDS, anal prolapse, and exhaustion are not beneficial to the survival of a group.
>men who fuck other men aren't homosexual
>sick fucks are sick fucks because they get the punishment they deserve and not because they're defectives who need to be physically removed from a healthy society
▶ No.95448
>>95385
>But the idea that this can happen is not fundamentally retarded.
Yes it is, all it takes is a cursory knowledge of genetics.
Still less retarded than the stormfaggot spam, not that it takes much to do better.
▶ No.95458>>95644
>>95441
To the best of our knowledge, at this moment in evolutionary history, it doesn’t include H. sapiens. That doesn’t speak to all of evolution, or to the Grand Design of the universe. It just means that this version of biology isn’t backward compatible.
Other species have been observed copulating with genetically incompatible mates. And of course there are species that successfully cross breed.
If sexual attraction to unlikely mates is an innate property of some species it can possibly be a trait of any species. If you think that humans are exempted from the laws of the animal kingdom then your argument is religious, not biological or scientific in any way.
“My point” is that people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about should not speak as if they’re an authority on the subject. And they certainly should not let themselves be fooled into believing that they are.
The least you can do is google some journals written by actual scientists before forming your final opinion and blithering it all over the internet.
▶ No.95524>>95528
>>95385
>Homosexuality was identified by military commanders in ancient Europe as being a much more powerful unifying force than nationality or even being from the same village. It can certainly benefit the odds of survival of a group.
▶ No.95527>>95536 >>95544 >>95645
>>92682
Wow! Your ignorance and complete lack of knowledge about Christians and Christianity is astounding!
>>92684
Nice try but no go. 0/10 you fail. Lurk moar, faggot!
>>95320
1: Genetics doesn't work that way.
2: Homosexuality is natures way of saying you're not good enough to help perpetuate the species.
>>95385
Again, genetics doesn't work the way you think it is.
Let's put it this way: trying to mix human and, say, dog genes is like trying to combine C++ computer language with Linux or, worse, Tandy basic. It just doesn't work without a shit ton of very extensive rewriting and even then what you end up with is a total abomination and nightmare of a creation.
>>95385
>Homosexuality was identified by military commanders in ancient Europe as being a much more powerful unifying force than nationality or even being from the same village. It can certainly benefit the odds of survival of a group.
Show me an actual, verified source where it says that or you're just making shit up. Also, again, homosexuality is NATURES WAY OF SAYING THAT YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO HELP PERPETUATE THE SPECIES.
(((I'm laughing my ass off at the sheer level of absolute, utter ignorance, stupidity and retardation in this thread. It's beyond insane!)))
▶ No.95528>>95538
>>95524
It looks like you're attempting to use Leftist failfag repetition tactics!
Sorry, Lucinda, but repeating something endlessly does not make it true and only proves that you're a bigger faggot then ten thousand Richard Simmons clones.
▶ No.95530
>>92679 (OP)
God didn't create weird attractions, those were the result of other forces interfering with God's plans and intent.
Look at it this way: let's say a really good programmer creates a wonderful operating system, far better and far easier, more functional and far more stable than anyone has created to date. Now, let's say some asshole comes along and writes viruses that mess up this awesome operating system and its functions. Let's say the one who writes the viruses is the Devil. Now I hope that, perhaps, you have a much better idea of how things happen.
▶ No.95531>>95539
>>92680
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
GOD IS REAL
"Only the fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.' - Psalms 14:1
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good." Psalm 53:1
▶ No.95536>>95548
>>95527
Ok so just as an FYI... you’re now segueing from biology, an area where I have a personal academic interest, into computer science.. an area in which I work professionally.
You most certainly CAN mix multiple languages in a single project. This is extremely common today given the youth of C# and the many other Javakin dialects currently en vogue. You can even drop foreign languages right into code blocks in most modern compilers. But C++ and BASIC are languages and Linux is an operating system capable of running compilers for, well all languages. I’ve programmed in Tandy BASIC, CBM BASIC, QuickBASIC, VB, and a few others. It’s an interpreted language but it definitely can be compiled along with C/C++.
But did you know that we humans have three sets of DNA, at least one of which is thought to have invaded all life as a virus long before the evolution of our species? It’s fascinating.
Also computer code is a great metaphor for genetics but not a solid enough analogy that you can assume what works on your laptop functions identically in the nuclei of your cells.
Re homosexual warriors in the classical period...
Have you ever heard of this guy named Plato? I don’t have the time to introduce you if not. I just googled “homosexuality in Ancient Rome/Ancient Greece” and read the first couple links. There’s also a scene in 300 where Athenians are compared to Spartans if you like movies.
Some of what you say makes sense but some of your assumptions are unfounded. I don’t have a stake in this and I’m not going to spoon feed you the information and try to turn you into a copy of me. I really spent minimal time researching this and you can catch right up to me if you just make a snack and hit up google for a few minutes.
▶ No.95538
>>95528
> Lucinda
>leftist
The pic is literally from the herp thread, the fuck are you talking about you paranoid /pol/-parody
▶ No.95539>>95541
>>95531
I believe God is real. I just don’t think he’s as much of a hater as some here seem to think he is.
▶ No.95540
>>95532
The only ones trying to derail anything are the parrots who keep saying the same blatantly idiotic shit over and over even in the face of easily verified contrasting evidence.
▶ No.95541>>95545
>>95539
>I just don’t think he’s as much of a hater as some here seem to think he is.
War, misery, incurable diseases, severe poverty, sadism, ignorance, apathy, environmental disasters I can go on and on, there is way too much misery in the world, as compared to good things, god has left us a long time ago.
▶ No.95542
>>95532
>EITHER PARTICIPATE OR GET THE FUCK OUT
>Not replying makes you a cuck-channer
So wait do you want them to participate or not?
▶ No.95544
>>95527
Oh one more thing, since you used the example of dog genes.
A study (and again, look this shit up on your own, because this isn’t my defense and you’re not my Ph.D advisor) showed that although our ears lack the muscles of a dog’s and cannot turn to capture directional sounds, human brains still process the information and send the same nerve impulses to where those muscles would be if we were dogs. Much of our DNA is shared with most living things on the planet. Star Trek did a story about this at least once too. The unique thing about most genes is how they express, not the genes themselves. To go back to the computer analogy, it’s like we all run the same CPU and share object code, but the IO ports and peripherals may be configured differently one species to the next.
▶ No.95545
>>95541
God didn’t leave us. He just doesn’t have the patience to hang around in an environment like this. Stop wallowing and look for him.
▶ No.95548>>95552 >>95556
>>95536
>You most certainly CAN mix multiple languages in a single project.
>But did you know that we humans have three sets of DNA
(You'll need to give citation on those.)
That's a strawman argument and is irrelevant. You cannot breed, say, a dog and a monkey and get offspring. It just doesn't happen because the DNA of the two animals is incompatible. It's the same with combining, say, humans and horses or humans and monkeys or humans or any non-human biological entity.
Note that the nations from the classic ancient periods you described were all destroyed within a relatively short time after they accepted homosexuality as a norm.
https://appliedsentience.com/2013/07/19/a-global-historical-survey-does-accepting-homosexuality-lead-to-civilizational-ruin/ (That's actually a very fair and impartial site and just gives information on various ancient civilizations relating to homosexuality.)
https://mic.com/articles/42599/6-reasonable-arguments-for-why-gay-marriage-will-end-civilization#.g9nREhaGs
Also, let's consider at least one of the reasons why so many ancient civilizations either discouraged or outright banned homosexuality: one of the very valid reasons is because most ancient civilizations recognized homosexuality as an abnormality, a mental aberration and an illness, be it mental or spiritual. Also most, if not all ancient civilizations relied on tight communities and even tighter cooperation between its members/citizens just in order to survive the rigors of natural disasters, famines disease and other deadly things and groups of homosexuals sprouting up in communities tended to be an extremely disruptive thing (as you can see even today), disruptions which, more often than not, threatened the very survival of said communities.
Ours is a very unique and rare age, indeed! Not only do we live in an era of constant, regular abundance of food, to the point where it seems like the norm for everyone, but we also live in a truly remarkable age of freedom and technological advancement
The kind of freedoms we enjoy has existed for less than three hundred years. Comparing this to the total of ten thousand years of human civilization shows it to be a very short period, indeed! Also, our level of technological advancement and personal freedoms allow for us to engage in what are, essentially, the luxuries of tolerating homosexuality, rampant criminality and other civilization-destroying phenomenon.
It's not surprising that most, if not all people think that the way we live is 'normal', that it's always been this way and always will be. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I said, ours is a very unique age even to the point of constituting an anomaly and even a bizarre one at that.
However, it's clear that what we take for granted cannot last forever and is, even now, in a period of great decline leading to its ultimate destruction.
That destruction is facilitated and exacerbated by the reduction and eradication of the normal, natural human family, the espousing of abnormal, destructive social and private practices and the embracing of social attitudes which, at best, are destructive.
Human isolation through the cloistering effect of social media and related machines fractures and destroys us even further.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this entire world weren't plunged into a nightmarish new dark ages and, without those governments and associated powers to protect them, the surviving hoards of human beings will do what they have always done: they will destroy and eradicate any thing and any one that threatens their survival and continued existence.
▶ No.95552>>95555 >>95557
>>95548
Look, I can tell you that the sky is blue and you can show me a picture of a cloudy day and I can tell you that the sky above the clouds is blue and you can show me a picture of the night sky and I can show you what a pair of blue jeans looks like at night and you can show me a picture of the sky on mars and we can keep going with that.
But going waaaaay back to my first post, no, you’re wrong in assuming that two species will always be genetically incompatible. It’s a proven fact that sometimes it can happen. And it’s a staple of scientific logic that a maybe is not the same thing as a no.
I agree with you that humans and monkeys cannot breed super ninja furry children. But I don’t agree with you that sexual attraction between species is A: universally fruitless or B: solely human or solely furry in nature.
And I really don’t agree with anyone that says humans fucking animals is against the plan of nature because you’re really just saying it’s against Christian values.
Mitochondria and plasmids. Look em up.
▶ No.95555
>>95552
Also check out the science of transgenics, which has been around (I think) longer than computers.
▶ No.95556>>95585
>>95548
>All that writing
>all those links
If you want to BTFO gays being healthy just use these two infographs (pic 1 and 2).
However along with pic 3 I have a small piece of food for thought.
The Greeks hated women so much they stuck to pedastry, but make no mistake, they weren't gay. So the math works out like this
>if your protege sucks your dick, it's not gay
>if you suck your protege's dick, or otherwise fondle him, you're educating him (grooming by modern standards)
>if you fucked in the ass you were a degenerate, top or bottom
>if you were Greek and male, you were expected to gay it up in the social hierarchy because of social norms
>wives were for duty and also women are for minding the house, so you don't spend time with them
Here's a Wikipedia article that goes more in-depth with the sociology of it all, with mentions to how it affected women: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
In order to get around the "no buttsex" rule they did intercrural sex.
▶ No.95557>>95594
>>95552
>A: universally fruitless or B: solely human or solely furry in nature.
M8, genetic modification is one thing, but expecting a result from fucking an animal ain't.
Regardless this is >>>/zoo/ level shit.
▶ No.95585>>95621
>>95556
Pederasty in Ancient Greece was not the same thing as adult sexual relationships. One was exactly what we have today and the other was a way young boys could, well basically, build professional networks. It was considered inappropriate for an older man to fuck a boy, as much as I’m sure that disappoints people here.
Also the entire idea of homosexuality was a little different back then. The “man” and “woman” were pretty much the one on top and the one on the bottom, respectively, which was why a boy wasn’t expected to take it up the ass... he was learning to become a man.
▶ No.95594>>95621
>>95557
No it’s absurd that “fucking a sheep might further the course of evolution and usher in the age of the RL furry.” Everyone knows it doesn’t work like that.
But that is a far cry from “inter-species breeding will destroy the tree of life” or “inter-species breeding is a furry sin that serves no evolutionary function.” It happens, and it happened millions of years before furries or humans, and aside from pissing off Christians or spreading zoonotic diseases (which are spread plenty of other ways too)... it’s really just an oddity.
▶ No.95621
>>95594
> It happens, and it happened millions of years before furries or humans
I don't think its something that should be done but i guess that's a fair point.
>>95585
I know, Again just food for thought.
▶ No.95644>>95647
>>95458
The point is that your akshually-ing is irrelevant. Bestiality provides no societal benefit and only provides cons, so it should be discouraged. The fact that humans have urges to do things doesn't justify doing them, unless you want to justify rape, wanton murder, etc.
▶ No.95645>>95651
>>95527
>2: Homosexuality is natures way of saying you're not good enough to help perpetuate the species.
Child abusers can scar their victims into becoming child abusers themselves, turning what would have been a normal, healthy member of society into a degenerate predator. It is a disease.
▶ No.95647>>95652 >>95712
>>95644
I just learned that there’s a South American country, Colombia or shit, maybe it was Mexico.... where boys practice sex and blow off their urges with donkeys. They refer to them as their “girlfriends.” They don’t spread STDs and they don’t get them pregnant.
Boom, social benefit.
Don’t assume that a biological/sociological phenomenon has no useful purpose because you can’t imagine or perceive one. There are homo ducks and raccoons that fuck dachshunds. Unless you’re God and know the exact reasons for these behaviors you shouldn’t feel like you need to explain it to anyone else.
▶ No.95648>>95653
To be agents of destruction. You're a part of the worlds immune system.
Embrace it or fuck off.
▶ No.95651
>>95645
Nice try but you really need to get away from the drugs and stop fantasizing about having sex with kids.
▶ No.95652>>95676 >>95712
>>95647
It took me all of two seconds to google the correct answer and, yes, I do know what country it is and, yes, there are two documentaries about it located on the site but since you were too fucking lazy to google it yourself I'm not going to tell you the country or post a link to the site.
Let this be a lesson to you I'm not your father do your own fucking homework
▶ No.95653>>95668
>>95648
May you be the first disease cell they eradicate. (And may I never be found by them.)
▶ No.95668
>>95653
There wouldn't be much a point for disease if it wasn't dealt with, otherwise the whole system fails.
▶ No.95676>>95712
>>95652
Now you’re getting the hang of it!
God I wish half the people on these kinds of sites could figure out google as quick as you did. Holy hot damn.
So yeah. At least you don’t think I made that up too.
▶ No.95712>>95716
>>95647
>>95652
>>95676
IT IS YOU FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE A SOURCE WHEN YOU PROVIDE A CLAIM! IF YOU DON'T, YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS RENDERED MUTE BECAUSE YOUR CLAIM HAS AS MUCB VALIDITY AS THE STATEMENT SOMEONE JUST PULLED OUT OF THEIR FUCKING ASS!!!
<But, MUH GOOGLE IT!
THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU PROVIDE THE SOURCE IN THE FIRST PLACE? ON TOP OF THAT, WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES PULL UP A SEARCH RESULT WITH INFORMATION THAT RUNS COUNTER TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?!? THEY HAVE A VERIFIED SOURCE, YOU DON'T! THEREFORE, THEIR ARGUMENT WINS!!!
Why is this so hard to understand?
▶ No.95716>>95718
>>95712
If you can verify it with a trivial amount of effort then no, I don’t. This isn’t Wikipedia and like I said you’re not my thesis advisor and this isn’t a defense.
I don’t need to post links to dictionary.com to define every word I use either. The main reason is that we have the tool of language to help us communicate ideas.
If it falls within the technical vocabulary and historic context and is accepted by a majority of commentators then it is adequate to simply state it. Plato is not some obscure shit no one ever heard of.
Normal people don’t interact the way you’re demanding and while I’ll grant you I’m far from normal, I feel just as strongly about you using your brain to fill those gaps instead of making me do it.
I’ll do you the same courtesy. If you make some weird ass claim I’ve never heard of, ill google it before just blurting out that it’s false and calling you an idiot.
▶ No.95718>>95719
>>95716
If you can't be bothered to provide the proof to your claim, everyone else is under no obligation to assign any worth whatsoever to your assertions and have every right to summarily dismiss them as unfounded nonsense. Don't be a whiny, evasive little weasel when you're asked for proof- it makes you look like a sniveling coward.
▶ No.95719>>95720
>>95718
I think someone else is being whiny and lazy, or self-hating for not automatically knowing everything, or whatever.
The world is not going to coddle you and lay out a complete logical blueprint so that you can feel comfortable in any discussion. Some intelligent conversations are inevitably going to require.... you know, intelligence.
An argument is not, contrary to what that guy says, automatically and entirely invalidated simply because someone never heard of one aspect of the argument, or because the relevant MLA citation wasn’t properly attached.
▶ No.95720>>95727 >>95728
>>95719
Again, it's not my job to substantiate your argument. If you're going whinge and complain that someone asked you for proof, don't make the claim to begin with. The half-remembered clickbait article you likely got that from isn't exactly trustworthy, especially when you don't have enough faith in your source to post it yourself.
▶ No.95727>>95731
>>95720
I think you’ve confused me with someone else. If you asked me for a citation and didn’t scream it in red capital letters I’d probably have just said something like “I think it was a Vice TV spot.” I like their content. I’m not a fan of their racist founder. But I’m pretty sure it was a Vice doc and not a clickbait article.
When you watch one of their documentaries, do you also email them with an ultimatum of, “SUBSTANTIATE THIS WITH SOURCES OR YOUR ENTIRE PRODUCTION IS BASELESS AND INVALID!”?
And do they ever respond positively? Has anyone ever responded positively to that technique?
Sometimes you need to do your own critical thinking.
▶ No.95728>>95730 >>95731
>>95720
I really don’t get where you picked up the idea that everyone has to spoon feed you the information. This isn’t school. If a fact, opinion, or scientific theory exists and is among the top three hits on google, most people will not take the time to write a five paragraph essay. If anything I’m too forthcoming with details for this medium. You are reading this right now on a device capable of accessing google and Wikipedia.
It’s like the computer code thing. If I say you can embed a Pascal block into a C program to someone who brings up computer programming, either that person should know this extremely basic fact of computers, or they don’t know the first thing about computers and should never have made the analogy in the first place.
I assume you know basic shit based on the conversation. I’m not here to educate everyone and turn them into copies of me. That’s hardcore autism shit right there.
▶ No.95730
>>95728
>spoon feed you the information
<Backing up your argument with sources is spoonfeeding
HOLY SHIT! WE GOT A LIVE ONE HERE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!
▶ No.95731>>95732
>>95727
Nice try, but I'm not the anon that posted the redtext.
As trash as Vice is, their documentaries typically have said source as their subject or serve as a first-hand, albeit heavily propagandized look at something. It's very telling that instead of linking to whatever source you're using which would have taken all but a second, by the way, you instead made multiple paragraph posts about how people who ask for a source are lazy and entitled.
If you want people to fall for your propagandist bullshit, at least link to the fucking propaganda.
>>95728
Clearly whatever school you went to didn't teach you the importance of properly sourcing, nor the that of verification.
And yet you've written multiple paragraphs saying you don't need to source your claim that bestiality is somehow a net positive, so clearly time or willingness to spit out words is not the issue here.
I'm still waiting for that source by the way. Not that you'll ever post it- because you know those lies will get rightfully torn apart.
▶ No.95732>>95743
>>95731
No my dude. You’ve got me all wrong.
I have multiple academic degrees. I have at the very least convinced several deans of accredited universities that I know how to cite a source.
But I don’t do it at cocktail parties. If someone says “no shit,” I’ll tell them where they can read what I read. I don’t have a PowerPoint show handy for such cases.
A *chan is a discussion, not a media platform. You might want it to be run that way but not everyone comes here expecting shit to be run like a peer reviewed journal. You read, you think, and you comment with your take on the situation.
If you choose to believe all or nothing by the simple litmus test of “was it said by someone else already,” not only are you severely limiting your thinking and understanding of a subject, you’re also denying yourself the ultimate analytical tool, which is the use of your own brain.
So just lighten up and try to appreciate that some things are well understood by others and not just coming to light for the first time.
If it’s out there and the average literate person can find it in a few seconds, then the average literate person will not take the time to spell it out. No discussion would ever get anywhere if it wasn’t for this.
I use a lot of words, and I organize my statements into paragraphs, because I know how to. I will grant that it’s unusual in the “no u” era of discourse, but I’m by no means ashamed of my ability to communicate.
▶ No.95733>>95743
Oh and did you mean the donkey fucking one? You said you’d seen two docs about it and I assumed the one I saw was among them. How many different videos have been produced about Central American donkey buggery? How many do you need?
▶ No.95743>>95745
>>95732
>>95733
>>95734
>>95735
>>95736
>>95737
>>95738
>>95739
>>95740
>>95741
Jesus Christ.
Just stop sperging out and link your source already.
▶ No.95745>>95746 >>95751
>>95743
You know that other people can tell the difference between me and you right?
I wouldn’t be heartbroken if a mod nuked this whole thread.
Also I fucking told you already like three times. I am pretty sure it was Vice.
▶ No.95746>>95748 >>95750
>>95745
That's still not providing a source.
▶ No.95748>>95749
>>95746
You copy pasted my explanation of why you won’t be getting one enough times that you should understand it by now.
▶ No.95749
>>95748
Then don't use that information if there isn't a way for you to back it up.
▶ No.95750>>95752 >>95754
>>95746
Also, it’s not even relevant. Do you dispute that boys in South America somewhere are banging donkeys? Or do you dispute the social good of kids avoiding unprotected sex with each other? Because the original statement was neither of those... it was that animal sex brings only harm and cannot possibly benefit society.
I see reduced teenage pregnancy and STD rates as a social good. I am not aware of any kind of “donkey aids” that can arise from a teenage boy sticking his pecker into a donkey.
▶ No.95751>>95758
>>95744
>>95745
So let me get this straight, you sperg out for several posts about proper sourcing being too hard, waxing about nihilistic nonsense and a likely nonexistent college degree, then proceed to copy and paste spam- and have the gall to blame it on others?
You're a real sack of shit. Not only can you not source for fuck, you just as pathetic in your false flag attempts- no matter how preemptive you attempt to be. Time for you to break out those unsourced infographs your comrades made, because apparently direct linking a video or an webpage is harder than getting to the fucking moon.
▶ No.95752>>95754 >>95755
>>95750
>Do you dispute that boys in South America somewhere are banging donkeys?
I don't know, I haven't seen any evidence confirming or denying the fact. In fact, you're the first person that I've seen even mention it.
>Or do you dispute the social good of kids avoiding unprotected sex with each other?
People shouldn't have ANY sex outside of marriage, "protected" or not, because you stand the risk of spreading or getting infect by STDs: https://archive.fo/6KK2R
>Because the original statement was neither of those... it was that animal sex brings only harm and cannot possibly benefit society.
And, where is your claim to back it up?
>I see reduced teenage pregnancy and STD rates as a social good. I am not aware of any kind of “donkey aids” that can arise from a teenage boy sticking his pecker into a donkey.
▶ No.95754>>95790
>>95750
>>95752
Didn't see that last statement.
>>I see reduced teenage pregnancy and STD rates as a social good.
The only way you can prevent teenage pregnancy and STDs is to practice abstinence. Outside of that, you run the risk of catching STDs ('''Regardless of whether you use
"protection": https://archive.fo/6KK2R ''') and "casual sex" does nothing but destroy relationships: https://archive.fo/CMSr6#selection-3573.0-3597.62
>I am not aware of any kind of “donkey aids” that can arise from a teenage boy sticking his pecker into a donkey.
<Sex With Animals Linked to Penile Cancer
https://archive.fo/qef1Q
livescience.com/16903-sex-animals-bestiality-penile-cancer.html
▶ No.95755>>95756 >>95760
>>95752
Okay so THIS is something I disagree with, and which I see as a point of contention between me and you.
>People shouldn't have ANY sex outside of marriage, "protected" or not, because...
In general, zoonotic diseases are rarer than diseases spread by direct contact between members of the same species. This has been verified for some STDs. So while it may not be “safe” to practice sex with a donkey, it’s almost certainly “safer” than practicing it with another human. Especially if you’re 11 years old.
And as I said, if your objection to premarital sex is “you shouldn’t do it at all,” you project a strong reek of Christian fundamentalism and that is a big turnoff to some academic types who want to actually discuss the issue.
Condoms reduce the spread of diseases. They reduce accidental pregnancies. Pragmatic people understand that if your kids are gonna fuck, it’s better that they use a rubber and learn about plan B and know the symptoms of STDs. Sure, in a perfect world we’d all wait till marriage and it would be our soul mate and we’d never have divorces or infidelity.
Did you not see the two documentaries? Did I imagine that? Anyway there is indeed a vice doc about it. Colombia. Which if I’m not mistaken was my first guess.
▶ No.95756>>95760
>>95755
Oh and sorry. I did read the cancer article. Note that there are other factors which may be the actual responsible element, like low prevalence of circumcision and low standards of medical are and hygiene in developing countries. Donkeys aren’t even mentioned but chickens are, and even a raw egg from the supermarket can give you salmonella. Chickens are nasty animals. It’s misleading to say that “according to this source, fucking a donkey will give you cancer.”
▶ No.95758>>95759 >>95760 >>95763
>>95751
Oh and no. I posted something that you copied and pasted like ten times (or maybe someone else did it and you got tilted at it, and if that’s the case, good show anon, I’m gonna remember that one!)... and then accused me of “sperging out,” as if locking your brakes and throwing a tantrum for an easily googled citation is anything BUT “sperging out”... and also sprinkled in an attack on my educational credentials which, believe me, they’re real. I’ll be paying Nelnet for that shit the rest of my life.
I’m just sharing my thoughts in a discussion board on the off chance that anyone else would like to, you know, discuss.
▶ No.95759
>>95758
Lest you mistake me for a wizard I’ll share my secret with you. All of the things you post here have a (you) after the post number.
▶ No.95760>>95780 >>95783 >>95790
>>95755
>And as I said, if your objection to premarital sex is “you shouldn’t do it at all,” you project a strong reek of Christian fundamentalism and that is a big turnoff to some academic types who want to actually discuss the issue.
If the kid wants to jack off, get the little bastard some porn. If anything, it will make the little guy less "misogynistic".
>Condoms reduce the spread of diseases.
There is still that risk. THAT's the problem.
>They reduce accidental pregnancies.
Again, you shouldn't be having sex until marriage in the first place.
>Pragmatic people understand that if your kids are gonna fuck, it’s better that they use a rubber and learn about plan B and know the symptoms of STDs.
Again, you give them porn. It's safe, and nothing bad happens as a result.
>Did you not see the two documentaries?
I can't watch them unless you provide them.
>>95756
>like low prevalence of circumcision
<MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision
https://archive.fo/UJk5h
>Donkeys aren’t even mentioned but chickens are, and even a raw egg from the supermarket can give you salmonella. Chickens are nasty animals. It’s misleading to say that “according to this source, fucking a donkey will give you cancer.”
List of all the STDs you can get from animals: https://archive.fo/fzRHZ
>>95758
>an easily googled citation
Then why don't you provide a source?
▶ No.95763>>95764
>>95758
Or you know, you could just post the source for your claim without going through multiple posts, paragraphs, and spam about how you're totally justified in making wild claims without any evidence. It's so easy to copy and paste a link to your sources that even the most retarded poster can do it with minimal effort.
As for your supposed college degree, it's not relevant to any of your points and mentioning it serves no purpose but to inflate your own ego and sense of self-worth. Anyway, I highly doubt anyone who has trouble grasping the grade-school level concept of citing sources when making absurd claims like yours is likely to actually have such a degree in the first place.
▶ No.95764>>95765 >>95781
>>95763
>I highly doubt anyone who has trouble grasping the grade-school level concept of citing sources when making absurd claims like yours is likely to actually have such a degree in the first place.
Apparently, you haven't seen how the scientific field operates. They take their retardation to a WHOLE new level.
▶ No.95765>>95766
>>95764
Which scientific field? Because stuff like physics and biology st least have the benefit of repeatable experimentation.
▶ No.95766>>95781 >>95790
>>95765
Except for the fact that almost all of those studies cannot be reproduced:
>70-90% Of Science Articles NOT Reproducible
https://archive.fo/P9CpQ
bewellbuzz.com/technology/many-published-studies-complete-bs/
Also, and this going by just what I've heard, the physics field pretty much hit a wall until a few months ago when Steven Hawking died due to the fact of "How can you say that this brilliant disabled man is wrong?" In fact, I've seen some Anons going as far as to say that even some of Einstein's "theories" are wrong, and that the only reason people can't disprove them is because of people sucking off the previous generation. Now, while this is just seeing what Anons post here (With little actual backing), I don't totally disbelieve it because even centuries ago, you had scientists and philosophers who treated the previous generations like they are an "unquestionable God":
<Roger Bacon's writings were like a flash of light in a profound darkness. He combined his attack upon the ignorance of his times with a wealth of suggestion for the increase of knowledge. In his passionate insistence upon the need of experiment and of collecting knowledge, the spirit of Aristotle lives again in him. "Experiment, experiment," that is the burthen of Roger Bacon.
<Yet of Aristotle himself Roger Bacon fell foul. He fell foul of him because men, instead of facing facts boldly, sat in rooms and pored over the bad Latin translations which were then all that was available of the master. "If I had my way," he wrote, in his intemperate fashion, "I should burn all the books of Aristotle, for the study of them can only lead to a loss of time, produce error, and increase ignorance," a sentiment that Aristotle would probably have echoed could he have returned to a world in which his works were not so much read as worshipped-and that, as Roger Bacon showed, in these most abominable translations.
▶ No.95780>>95784 >>95786
>>95760
There is a difference between someone inadequately citing their sources and you throwing a pissy fit because they’re not taking the time to handcraft you a clickable link.
YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD WHO CANNOT LOCATE A VICE TV DOCUMENTARY ABOUT DONKEY FUCKING IN COLOMBIA.
You also said you were aware of it.
My inflexibility and refusal to do stupid internet tricks at your demand are not the reason you’re incapable of watching that video.
▶ No.95781>>95786
>>95764
>>95766
If you accept that nothing but garbage comes from academia then you don’t need sources because you have no need to read any of it.
I’m sure there are a lot of flawed scientific studies but I still think that a theory based on scientific method with current observations and flawed execution still trumps a radical fundamentalist dogma based on a poorly translated set of prophecies, parables and histories from thousands of years ago.
But the same type of mind that sees no advantage in reducing SOME disease and teen pregnancy over doing absolutely nothing probably wouldn’t distinguish the two.
▶ No.95783
>>95760
The only STD on that list is AIDS, and given that it’s widely theorized to have zoonotic origin I don’t think anyone is shocked to find it on that “list of STDs you can get from animals.”
Any farm worker probably has the same risk of contracting one of those diseases if he keeps his dick in his pants.
Plus no one here is talking about fucking a monkey.
Face it, some of you are only here to scream your opinions as loudly and frequently as needed until you’re the only ones left. People walking away from the argument is not an indicator of your righteousness.
▶ No.95784>>95785
>>95780
>handcraft you a clickable link.
>handcraft
Literally all you have to do is copy and paste from the browser's address bar.
S P E R G H A R D E R
▶ No.95785
▶ No.95786>>95787 >>95789
>>95780
>YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD WHO CANNOT LOCATE A VICE TV DOCUMENTARY ABOUT DONKEY FUCKING IN COLOMBIA.
I have absolutely no responsibility to. Why can't you provide a link to it if it is so important?
>>95781
>I’m sure there are a lot of flawed scientific studies but I still think that a theory based on scientific method with current observations and flawed execution still trumps a radical fundamentalist dogma based on a poorly translated set of prophecies, parables and histories from thousands of years ago.
And, yet, you cannot provide a single source that backs your entire argument.
>But the same type of mind that sees no advantage in reducing SOME disease and teen pregnancy over doing absolutely nothing probably wouldn’t distinguish the two.
I already posted a solution, with sources:
Tell them to remain abstinent, and pull up porn if they need sexual relief.
▶ No.95787>>95788
>>95786
So you really believe that porn will stop kids from having premarital sex?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=does+pornography+reduce+premarital+sex
Among adolescents, Brown and L'Engle48 found that those exposed to pornographic materials through a variety of media (including Internet pornography and traditional media) were subsequently more likely to report permissive sexual attitudes (e.g., acceptance of casual or premarital sex) and to have oral or vaginal sex than youth with less exposure.
▶ No.95788
>>95787
>lmgtfy.com
That isn't a source.
▶ No.95789>>95790 >>95792
>>95786
You aren’t posting sources though. You’re not even reading the shit you’re posting.
I said you can’t get chlamydia from a donkey. You posted a list of barnyard diseases that you can get from fucking chickens and a study that suggests uncircumcised males may get more diseases because of low prevalence of circumcision and geographic trends in medical/hygienic practice.
Where’s the source that challenges my assertion that donkeys don’t spread human STDs? Where’s the source that says a girl can get pregnant if a boy in her village bangs a donkey?
▶ No.95790>>95794 >>96037
▶ No.95792>>95793
>>95789
>Where’s the source that challenges my assertion that donkeys don’t spread human STDs?
Also, looking at that archive, you have Brucellosis, Leptospirosis, Q fever, Rabies, and Salmonellam
▶ No.95793>>95798 >>96037
>>95792
None of which are STDs and none of which aren’t everyday hazards around people in developing regions who work with animals!
Do you realize that the Colombians not fucking the donkeys face nearly the same risk?
▶ No.95794>>95798 >>96037
>>95790
No I get that you are spamming unrelated shit into this thread as fast as you can not read them.... but you’re ripping into me for making unsubstantiated claims while making substantiated, but irrelevant claims.
I don’t believe the nonsense you’re saying and you’re being obstinate and refusing to read what I’m saying. There’s a difference.
▶ No.95799>>95802 >>96037
>>95798
I get the feeling that whoever I’m arguing with is well known here and the rest of the user base is having a great time following this.
No worries. I’m happy to keep the fires stoked while you guys take a break. But once my trip’s over I’ll have a lot less time to hold the retard leash, I’m afraid.
▶ No.95801>>95809
>Still hasn't posted a single source
▶ No.95802
>>95799
It's no wonder that a self-important and pompous individual such as yourself is extolling the virtues of bestiality while providing no sources.
▶ No.95809>>95810
>>95801
You haven’t asked for a single source.
▶ No.95810>>95812
>>95809
Factually incorrect.
▶ No.95812
>>95810
Well that’s how fucking annoying you are.
▶ No.95814
CNN is reporting on giant purple elephants, that shoot flames out of their butt, terrorizing New York
Google it, guys, it happened!
>But I can't find it.
Then you're not looking in the right place.
▶ No.95937
"'Sail!" Mary gasped. 'Sail into my uterus!' Joseph proceeded to unpack and assemble his new sailing boat he got from IKEA for an excellent price. 'Hurry up Joseph before I have my *** period' announced Mary in passionate desperation. Ceasing his craft and whittling, Joseph dared not to delay Mary's embellishing lust for him any longer. With haste, he sets the sails and shifts the unfinished yacht into turbo mode with its 8 litre W16 engine and mashes the throttle. Jesus appears before him and farts with astonishing force unto the sails, causing Joseph to accelerate from 0-60 in 500 milliseconds. A little poo came out and stained the fabric, but Joseph was far too overwhelmed at the fact he was about to go up Mary's vagina at 180 miles per hour. Faster than a Rwandan man can do squat thrusts in a potato field, Joseph disappeared into Mary's cave of righteousnesses. 'PRAISE BE THE LORD I'VE BEEN SAVED' muffled Joseph, blasting gospel from his boat's 500 watt sound system inside the pussy of Mary."
- Jezza 70:9823
▶ No.96037
>>95793
>>95794
>>95799
Gradually, I began to hate them.
>>95790
>>95798
He isn't arguing in good faith be it him having no intention in arguing in good faith (kike) or him being incapable of arguing in good faith (mental defective).
You've done all you need to to show why what he's promoting is bad, people with any sort of sense to them will see that he's full of shit and disregard his posts, those that lack it don't matter and deserve ruin.
This is one of those cases where if you want to change his mind you're gonna need to go to "wow le edge" options.