It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
https://nitter.net/PeterSinger/status/1722440246972018857
No, the art does not depict bestiality, don't worry.
Getting sexual gratification from an act is not the crime here lol. Is this protestant brainworms or something? If now on starting tomorrow via some magical means, all humans started orgasming after biting into a steak, would it then now suddenly be morally wrong to consume steak?
no it's the common usage of "bestiality." outside of vegan standard english i guess.
Find a better argument other than "Torturing and exploiting animals is okay as long as you're not horny while doing it"
The thread was somebody defending insemination of livestock, or at least trying to draw a distinction between bestiality and insemination because it is done to farm them rather than for sexual pleasure. My argument is that your intentions do not matter. Is the harm mitigated because you weren't horny while doing it? Why is it more important to view the crime through the lens of the perpetrator rather than through the lens of the victim in this scenario? It's a distinction without a difference.
I'm asking you what the fuck you're talking about. You keep saying "these arguments are online, this parallel doesn't match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism" but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what's being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said "This makes no sense". But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don't want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.
For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain