Famous Inventors…

Are you fucking kidding me? No, I’ve never thought about what’s like to have sex with a little boy. Or a goat. Or a man. Or raping some woman begging for her life. Good grief man!

To the other sick fuck on the forum…So you don’t see any difference in eating an animal and fucking it? True, an animal can’t consent to being eaten. And I would agree that it probably would rather not be eaten.

So, ok..Because we have McDonalds then logically and rationally everyone should be able to buy sheep to fuck them. Yeah, that makes sense.

Thanks for clearing that up.

As for your constant attention to religious dogma, fanaticism, etc…I think it’s pretty clear I’m not fucking religious and I find people that fuck animals to be sick, sick, sick. I didn’t come to this conclusion under the tutelage of a priest or other religous figure. I came to this conclusion because I’m not a sick fuck and humping a dog just seems fucking unnatural and sick.

Pervs like you like to claim that it’s ok to do whatever you want, because you have a right to this or that and go apeshit when “NORMAL” people say “Hey..that’s just fucked up, dude.” Guess what? Us normal people have a right to call bullshit on your sick, disgusting behavior. Since the majority of people think that fucking animals is sick, then the majority get to claim it’s wrong. Welcome to the real world where you don’t get to decide that everything you want to do is perfectly ok. Society gets a say in a lot of things and society says you are fucking nutjob.

You’re welcome.

“So because we eat animals, then we should just be able to fuck them too?”

What a sad, pathetic question. Try this and think about it “so because we eat our neighbors, then we should just be able to fuck them too?” In other words, if someone did those things to another HUMAN BEING, there would be no question that ending their life without their consent is far WORSE than having sex with them without their consent. But it gets even worse. Animals’ lives aren’t merely ‘ended’ and they aren’t merely ‘eaten’. After being bred from birth and held captive their entire lives, they are BRUTALLY SLAUGHTERED (literally, not figuratively). Then eaten.

But oh no! I thought you said you cared about animal consent! Since the point flew by your head so quickly, I’ll spell it out for you. You said “An animal can’t consent” and used that as part of your reasoning. Well. That’s novel. I call bullshit on you. I called you out for being intellectually DISHONEST because if you truly believed that, you’d give a shit about millions of real animals being FUCKED every day by ranchers’ tools (figuratively). Or are you capable of producing the animal consent forms?

“PIG #03821: I hereby consent to have this nice gentleman with the pick axe forcefully drive the sharp end into my skull repeatedly until I stop breathing and die. I apologize in advance for all the intense squeeling that will ensue as I, in horrendous pain, am being bludgeoned to death. If it were possible, I’d wipe up all the blood and brains spewing from my skull onto the ground afterwards to make it up to you. Finally, I thank you for otherwise respecting my right not to be sexually molested for your pleasure.

Signed,
Mr Piggy. #03821″

Either you believe in animal consent or you don’t. You don’t get to believe in animal consent UP UNTIL the point where you benefit, unless you want to be called out for the hypocrite you are. So yes I assumed you are a carnivore to make my point. I assumed you don’t give a shit about animals’ consent as long as you get to eat them. But I took my chances on that because many people are, as they are socially conditioned by the masses to think that way (the self serving, hypocritical carnivorous human perspective, typically only upset that humans would have sex with non humans, not that non humans have any expectation not to be molested). Thoughts on bestiality also tend to originate from religious dogma (God(s) command(s): murder+eat=good. sex=bad, or be tortured for eternity!!!1), hence that reasonable assumption.

I did not make a point about whether bestiality is moral, instead I attacked the blatant dishonesty in reasoning on why you and anyone thinking like you claim it is immoral.

I also did not make a point about whether Linden Lab should seek a profit, instead I noted that they are doing it, as evidence by policy changes, as certain segments of their customer base increases. This should help others realize that the company’s substantive interest in either “encouragement” or “protection” of consumer content/behavior only extends to equally match the potential profit margin, where others may otherwise presuppose something more substantive (including alleged privacy interests), based on any other PR. (Kinda like AT&T now). From Linden Lab point of view, everything is expendable in Second Life.

As for your Jack Thompson point of view..what can I say, just read TechCrunch (and US Supreme Court decisions).

I think you need to reflect on the nature of fantasy. It is a safe way to express innermost urges. How many thousands of people go online to assume ludicrous avatars to slay dragons and explore magical lands? Do they use broadswords in real life?

What to say of the thousands who play violent games like Grand Theft Auto or Doom? Do they stand up from their game consols and then go and shoot someone?

We all have secret urges we repress. Most men fantasize about rape at some point- very few will actually do it. Many men fantasize about other men sleeping with their wives. very few will make this fantasy reality. We all like to flirt with the dark side, but most well-adjusted people know that flirting is as far as we should go.

Places like Second Life (or indeed any virtual world) allow us to flirt wthout consequence. They allow us to simple take the fantasies out of our subconscious and make them real. Have you ever deep in your darkest thoughts wondered what it’s like to have sex with a little boy? Or a goat? Another man? A captive, submisive blonde begging for her life?

If you are normal, you probably have. If you are normal you probably also will never act out this fantasies in real life- your social conditioning ensures that. But you can live the virtual fantasy- and given the fantasy chance, you probably will.

Really? Says who? So it makes sense to you that someone who loves to shag ponies online and live out their fantasies online will naturally never tend to have those tendencies in the real world? Yeah…that makes perfect sense. No really. It does. Completely logical that people with urges only satisfy them in a virtual world. Yup. Certainly they would never consider doing it in the real world. Gotcha.

So because we eat animals, then we should just be able to fuck them too? Is this an example of your logic?

Religious fanatics? So anyone who thinks that fucking a dog is sick is a religious fanatic?

So let me see if I can understand your point:

* People’s behavior online has 0% chance of reflecting their identity in the real world.

* Because we eat animals then we should be free to do whatever we please with them. Even fucking them up the ass.

* Anyone who criticizes your behavior, no matter how sickening, is a religious fanatic with an agenda.

Oh…and Linden is caving to the bottom-line? What does that mean? You mean they are concerned for profit? What the fuck else should they be concerned about? They are a for-profit company. For the clueless, that means they are there to make money. And if fucking nutjobs such as yourself are fucking that up for them, they are going to show you the door. Economics 101 for teh win.

That had me RABLMHO!

(Rolling around the barn laughing my hide off!)

Welcome to TechCrunch, Jack Thompson! For the record, that assertion is 100% incorrect, but something tells me that you already realize that virtual behavior doesn’t cause or encourage identical real life behavior for the 99% of human beings who are sane, yet since this particular thing offends *YOU*, you allow emotional illogic to cloud your thinking…

Oh, and by the way, did the poor chicken, pig, and cow in your lunch-time McDonald’s double-cheese chicken whopper deluxe with bacon CONSENT to being BRUTALLY SLAUGHTERED so you could have a cheap cholestorol instake for the day? Ah, the human logic of some humans can be silly to the point of sadness.

As for Second Life… I think it’s being invaded by the usual hypocritical religious fanatics en masse to fabricate a “broad” consensus, and Linden Lab is caving to the bottom-line. It wouldn’t surprise me if they expanded their further thought-censorship.

I watched a documentary on MTV a few years ago about “furries”, which is apparently a large group of people who dress up in animal costumes, like those you see at Six Flags, as a hobby, and some have sex with eachother with the costumes on, or with one who has the costume on. It was weird, weird stuff. MTV showed a couple getting it on. Crazy.

Amusis….If someone is going to act out their sick fucking animal fantasies online then odds are extraordinarly high that they are either doing it in real life or are seriously considering it. It’s laughable to suggest that virtual animal sex is going to appease the suck fuckwads. They are going to be even more apt to try it in real life. Closet my ass….

Sex with animals is just fucked up. If you advocate it then you are a sick, sick twisted person. An animal can’t consent so don’t even give me that horseshit about what “consenting adults” do. It won’t fly here.

I’d be all for allowing what Amusis suggest; that we leave the “closet” pedophiles and secret bestalists alone under one condition: That other players can hunt them down and put virtual bullets into their virtual brains.

Oh…but that’d be offensive, wouldn’t it?

http://search.e...sZfatfreemilk75