2019, I am furgotten

Thought he was OK till I learned he was a furfag. Unsubscribed right then.

>meanwhile mark makes one video every 4 months or so
>always finds the time for his Patreon paypigs monthly stream though
he's moving guys or sick or something a new video soon just once he gets a editor even though thats what he does

I don't know who that is but something about him tell me he fucks dogs

i havent forgotten you adam, i genuinely look forward to your movie reviews as i find them to be quite accurate.

Attached: 1479456533186.png (785x644, 65K)

>Whiny childlike voice
>His "criticism" consists of its bad or it's good
>Fucks his dog
>Is an annoying faggot all around

How is he so popular.

Thought he was SHIT till I learned he was a furfag. Subscribed right then.

Attached: 1542740002289.jpg (334x506, 23K)

He fucks dogs but is still better than IHE

Accept this review where he was just being a nitpicking faggot

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-26 at 12.17.09 AM.png (373x313, 260K)

I will not accept it.

Is that Adam Johnston from YMS (YourDogSucksMyCockDOTorg) who is a bestiality loving hipsterfuck?

content wise i can agree with you.

you should cause he was a cunt

Then why on Earth should I accept it?

Don't you have dog dicks to spam?

Nope. I have to post about niggers, women and trannies.

Attached: 1542739527103.jpg (249x249, 53K)

ah-bloo-bloo

Thought he was SHIT till I learned he was a furfag. Subscribed right then.

Attached: sexy pepe pic.png (334x506, 161K)

>2019
>Yea Forums STILL hasn't refuted his views on bestiality
the absolute STATE

He's wrong about fucking dogs when horses are so much hotter

Fuck off that's not what he said, everyone is twisting my words.

dogfucker

This. People should just leave me alone.

Don't you have dog dicks to spam?

What did he actually say about bestiality?

Here you go

youtube.com/watch?v=MRZbch9NmQQ

I love fucking DOGS!
>clinks glass
WhoOooh!!!
I'm gonna go fuck my Golden Retriever and there's nothing you can do about it, fuckface.
chao!
>zooms out the door

Attached: classy pepe.png (82x125, 19K)

yes he does fuck dogs
what gave it away?

>It's all good, dawg (dog)!

Just watch ralphthemoviemaker, hes 100x better than ihe and
Isuckdogcocks.

Attached: unnamed.jpg (900x900, 199K)

>t. ralph

Because it's either that or accept the dog fucking, but you probably do that yourself

Attached: 075.jpg (1024x576, 51K)

Attached: dog rapist apologizes for bestiality 1.png (1539x817, 138K)

Lucky bastard

Attached: dog rapist apologizes for bestiality 2.jpg (1858x980, 449K)

Even if he's right your average non-dog-fucking Joe wouldn't try so desperately to find a loophole that would make this even remotely ok. The mere fact that he's discussing it is sketchy as fuck.

>cum tube dildo
Gross

adum from YMS (yourmoviesucksDOTorg) is a dog rapist

I really tought this whole "he fucks dogs" was a joke or something on him being a furry ,(i watched some of his videos, but as a person he looks uninteresting so i didnt dig up on him)but with this image of him, he really looks like a dog rapist.

I mean sure you can likely sexually touch a dog without hurting it, but that he's so adamant about explaining this shit is really telling.

A Quiet Place was ass though.

A quiet place was stupid. Why the fuck arent they living at the waterfall? What if they fart or cough in their sleep in the house?

Attached: dog rapist apologizes for bestiality 3.png (1168x265, 50K)

I heard the cum shoot out of my dick tonight when I jerked off. Would the monsters hear that?

Attached: dog rapist cocaine addict.png (850x594, 98K)

Attached: dog rapist fucks over friend.png (2574x4799, 2.36M)

Daily reminder that his avatar is literally cropped from a pic where a guy is sucking off another guy who's in a fursuit.

Attached: dog rapist old films.png (900x327, 294K)

>tfw drug problem myself
I wanted to feel superior to a dog fucker. Now I feel inferior since he was able to kick it and I can't

Attached: 1375304712503.jpg (225x225, 7K)

Attached: dog rapist on nitpicking.jpg (759x191, 42K)

Is there an actual argument for why he is wrong other than "ew"?

Attached: dog rapist podcast.png (1072x1698, 410K)

>I didn't edit the videos
>its not my fault though Adam can still pay me
>don't call me lazy

Attached: dog rapist summarized.png (1279x308, 65K)

Attached: dog rapist years.jpg (394x475, 45K)

Stay away from my dog you fucking criminal.

He fucks his dog? Is this why Canadians keep getting called dogfuckers on /pol/?

Attached: dog rapist's favourite films.png (616x6864, 724K)

I picked up quick there was something degenerate about him, merely by his hedonistic worldview poking in on occasion. There's something so squirmy and unnatural about him.
Unironically, has YMS fielded any substantial philosophical argument?
YMS merely assumes that his Utilitarian, consequentialist take of ethics is simply correct, and needs no substantiation.
Fucking an animal forfeits your status as human. In the Kantian sense, you have made yourself the level of an animal, have dictated by your actions that the very idea of human value is null, and destroyed your human dignity and virtue. Just like the man who murders has made the very principle of life an absurdity, and it's then just to kill him, and treat him according to the precedent he himself set.
But in the Utilitarian, consequentialist worldview, human pleasure is the only inherently good value, while human dignity, virtue, and even life are inherently worthless.
YMS should be executed. His life should be forfeit, and a just government would exterminate all animal rapists.

Attached: dog rapist then and now.png (432x337, 155K)

I member you Adam

Proof

Dogfucking (think suking a dogs dick specifically) is legal in Canada. Hence they are dogfuckers.

Even thinking that such a degenerate shitbag exists on the same planet as me makes me want to chug bleach and alcohol until my braincells are purged of the thought.

Why does raping the shit out of dogs cause your head to blow up like this?

This whole time I though Adam was a horse guy, but he's been diddlin' dogs?
Horses can't NOT consent because they'll fucking kill you if you're hurting them, but dogs? C'mon man, who diddles dogs?

>“As long as no penetration occurs”
Holy fuck its true

>"And I'm giving this Labrador's anus a 6 out of 10. Maaaaybe a 7, I'll seeeee"
>*the dog begins whimpering in pain and fear*
>"Quiet! QUIET!"
>*Adam begins beating the poor dog whilst shilling Sardonicast*
>"Hmph! A-and one more thing!"
>*Adam kicks the dogs in the ribs and into a dark closet which he closes and locks. As the dog continues whimpering, Adam pants; his grotesquely fat face is red and sweaty*
>"AND FUCK MARK ENGLISH!"

Adum will NEVER, EVER be anywhere near as BASED as CHAD LAD RALPH.

Attached: king_candy.jpg (900x507, 43K)

lmao

Attached: oh lardy.png (917x244, 54K)

Yes it stands in complete contrast to the rest of his body of work

Attached: 20190523_082127.png (624x374, 229K)

I fingered that guy in a fursuit in a nightclub once

I haven't actually heard what he had said before... 2 minutes in so far, it's not that bad. What he is saying about the meat industry is true, it's basically rape of cows, but because it's for food "it's ok". It's fucking disgusting to think that anyone would be attracted to fucking animals, and we know he is because he is a disgusting Furry, but he sort of has a point at this part of the video, maybe he fucks up his argument later on, I'll keep watching.

MUCK

How was it?

Agreed

He has a massive ego and gets very pissy when criticized. He used to use Yea Forums a lot but it appears he did bail when threads started popping up criticizing him. He even posted screencaps of a thread on twitter to bitch about the hate.

>The Lion King
>Kill Bill
>The Pianist

Attached: IMG_20190522_193114.jpg (1080x710, 71K)

>He has a massive ego and gets very pissy when criticized.
Even if I was on board with his views, I'd drop him just for that kind of attitude.

sneed

>The Holy Mountain at #1
I can guarantee you he's never actually watched this and only put it on this list for Yea Forums brownie points.

>Yea Forums brownie points
why would anyone want those?

I wouldn't put it on #1 but at least in my top 10. It resonate a lot with my aesthetic preferences.

he gave sin city 10/10 lmao fuck off you dog fucker fag

Why would anyone want to fuck a dog? He's not all there, user.
I believe you. It's a great film. I don't believe this fag.

He's at least be relatively open about how fucked up he is.

Last two digits of my post are the amount of dogs Adam has fucked or gotten fucked by.

Attached: 1558811735622.jpg (1080x1184, 209K)

Wasn't it something along the lines if a dog likes something they physically show it i.e when you give them treats and when you do something they don't like they retaliate, its fucking retarded but then he is trying to justify fucking dogs.

FUCKING

youtube.com/watch?v=1iTsLZFaYIw

I really want to fuck (and suck) a guy as he turns into a werewolf. Does that make me as sick as Adam Johnston?

I'm a femanon btw.

Attached: american-werewolf-in-london.jpg (376x250, 24K)

the more interesting part is where he did a stream talking about how he was abused and forced to take lsd as a child

Attached: e55.jpg (1890x1417, 161K)

He yiffed millions...

I wouldn't call making an entire video defending bestiality something that a "relatively open" person would do. That's just full blown unapologetic degeneracy.

he's canadian

Based. This is now a ralphthemoviemaker thread. Post Ralph.

Attached: MV5BZWVmY2UwM2ItM2ZjYi00ZDVlLWI1MDctNTNiOTI2MmUzMjE3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjMxNzQ2NTQ@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,66 (663x1000, 106K)

Everyone in the Sardonicast is annoying.
EFAP is where it's at.

Ralph's based. IHE and YMS bring it down. YMS with his ego and arrogance and grating voice and laugh and IHE is so bland and boring. He presents himself as this cynical bastard but he's the most milquetoast faggot there is. I saw a video suggestion for one of his stuff the other day and it was hating on funko pop. Oh wow, so brave and bold! Fuck off. I hate him and I'm a Bong too.

but he fucks animals and you don't. you are leagues better don't beat yourself up about it.

One of the few guys that can do comedy skits in their reviews that I actually love. Nostalgia Critic shit makes me cringe.

Ralph is the best of the three, but he doesn't compare to who is the best of the three in EFAP (MauLer).

>EFAP
No idea what that is but know MauLer. Yeah, I like MauLer's stuff sometimes. I can't really say his massive, massive videos really interest but his unbridled rage stuff I enjoy. Still prefer Ralph cause I find him the most entertaining and enjoyable to watch. I don't necessarily watch him cause he provides insights that blow my mind or anything.

Ralph is dogshit. Every time I see his face I want to retch. So fucking insecure that his name has "movie maker" in it just to signal his misguided sense of superiority.

Lol, he made that channel and named it when he like 13 or something.

This is what I hate about the review community. It's just people giving their shit takes for 10 minutes then acting smug to people who disagree. If they ever respond to criticism, they always cherry pick comments or strawman points to look good. IHE's TLJ fiasco is probably the best example I can think of. You can like it or hate it but his approach was piss poor.

At least Mauler tries to explain why something works or not instead of being an ass. His EFAP series feels autofellatiotory and he has a habit of lingering too long on certain points in his vids (i.e. those stupid fucking lights in the opening scene of TFA) but he's a step in the right direction. Probably because he actually has passion for his work.

Attached: 1558738076941.jpg (960x876, 49K)

His argument is rock solid evidence of why fucking kids should be legal

You have to be really retarded, you dont go to jack off to him he doesnt need to be a chad, and wow he has moviemaker on his username, are you 7? You sound like one.

I've never seen Mauler do anything besides nitpick plot details. Doesn't make for very compelling criticism.

He is actually peak autism who doesn't understand that a movie is more than the sum of its parts. Each review I've ever seen of him had a "the editing is {X}, the score is {X}, the cinematography is {X}" segment, but never anything that put out an opinion on the movie's themes, on its structure, etc...

Attached: 1558789210079.jpg (640x480, 37K)

is that really what happened? I hear Mark wasn't doing his job, I still don't think he should have booted him their pairing was the only reason I watched any of his videos

MauLer is the only member of EFAP who isn't unbearably smug or irrationally angry most of the time.
Honestly neither them or Sardonicast are great or even good, for the sole reason that they believe mistakes derived from logistics or "things" are way more important than mistakes done through theme or narrative. For as much as they want stories to make sense, they don't appear to appreciate the truly important aspects of the craft

MauLer only brushes over things like Jon's arc in GOT being unsatisfying, and focuses waaay more on stuff like redundant dialogue or the logistics of Tyrion finding the bodies of his brother and sister under rubble. Tell me, would adding more rubble have made the episode any better

Attached: 1557622138821.jpg (600x607, 99K)

He was right, this shit made no sense and I even thought it in the theater. Nobody lives in a soundproof mixing studio, why? Let alone the waterfall someone else pointed out. And somehow the printing press still ran, what the fuck? So many holes in this.

Not even gonna save this shit.
images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/thumb/3/3e/At4m82l7v16z.png/280px-At4m82l7v16z.png

Funko Pops clearly sell, and are over priced. There's obviously a fan base for this shit. A convention near me had a 2-4 hour line for a limited edition Funko with a different colored shirt than the original. If there are 1000000 of something, it's safe to say it's selling. Just saying. Tons of ironic nerds have this shit.

>Bro, I'm just going to make bad decisions for no reason
The characters are so stupid in this film that it can't be overlooked.

Attached: brendan-fraser.jpg (763x731, 107K)

Pleb

dogs

fucker

>wholesome
sand-tier posting

Attached: Screenshot_20190124-021749.png (1080x1920, 404K)

He doesn't fuck the dog. He lets the dog fuck his ass and mouth. Big difference.

Mauler's videos are too fucking long. You shouldn't need the same length of a movie to explain why it doesn't work. Plus most of his shit is just picking out plot holes, it's the most brain-dead criticism imaginable.

lol
youtube.com/watch?v=ZLjtofl6Uc8

Attached: richevansmadeit.png (300x285, 38K)

>he seethingly replied to this literal who video in the comments

Mauler is just CinemaSins for incels.

Attached: dsp is inevitable.jpg (1280x720, 79K)

why do people watch yms? his voice is perhaps the third most annoying thing I have ever heard. he's basically 'that guy' you hate to watch films with

He is a fucking degenerate white nigger who loves to fuck dogs in the ass and who can't stand the fact that he always was and always will be a fucking loser who managed to gather a small following of fucking losers by sounding witty and smug on Internet.

his TWD videos were good the rest is pretty whatever though

>dununun
>so I just saw FILM and it was... not great?
>12 minutes of insufferable nit picking in the most nasal voice imaginable

Attached: 10a.jpg (648x428, 98K)

Calm down George

YMS>IHE>Ralph

Mark actually came on here and explained his side of the situation.

Attached: 1533664280723.jpg (1802x3359, 875K)

>critics say movie is smart
>it isn't
Nerd nit picks are okay when people talk about how "smart" this film is.

Not likely. Zoomers worship him and actually listen to his opinions. He's basically the Anthony Fantano of Yea Forums.

*all Adam wants is degeneracy
IHE is a normie and Ralph is actually a decent good faith critic. Adam judges things very subjectively(ironically). He'll fault a movie he disagrees with for "logical inconsistencies". Yet you go to his IMDB page and all his "10"s are low budget homo dramas.

He looked straight into the reactor.

Based Adam

What a man fucks is none of your concern desu

Has he admitted being a zoophile yet?

I wonder what YMS thinks when he see's these threads.

Attached: 1511493995137.png (701x670, 697K)

I think Adam has actually gotten worse over time. His reviews have become progressively lower effort, nit-picky, and surface level. If I had to guess the constant stream of Patreon bux is making him complacent.

And somehow, his voice has become even more nasally. Go check out one of his 2012 vids and compare. I thought it was just a puberty thing but he actually sounded more tolerable back then.

Attached: blue_knight.jpg (1280x720, 57K)

He doesn't have to

Attached: whyms.jpg (587x414, 43K)

He thinks: making this thread was a good idea.

Funny enough people asked him to put less effort into reviews if it would mean more reviews over time. The guy is fucking crazy with how thorough he can be, re-watching every movie of note released that year before he will release a "year in review." Its why his year in review style videos are years behind.

Attached: dog rapist vs tv.jpg (540x1178, 330K)

Shiiieeet. Is this for real?

Attached: lZlZyLkUm94.jpg (600x600, 39K)

HE TAKES THE WHOLE KNOT

THE KNOT

KNOT

That's a pretty good point, what's he getting at by tweeting it?

>fucking trannies is ok
>fucking dogs isn't ok
>women fucking dogs is ok
>humans are animals
>fucking animals isn't ok
>women fuck animals
>yms can't fuck animals
Sound about right?

its alcohol

He's tried arguing on multiple occasions that there's nothing wrong with beastiality; in his eyes, we shouldn't incarcerate people who casually have sex with their animals and he infamously said "vegans are the only people who are at liberty to say that having sex with animals is wrong". I guess to him, user's argument is invalid because "he's not thinking critically and thinking that "it's gross and yucky" rather than looking at it logically" or whatever the fuck bullshit argument he pulls out of his ass.

Hi Ralph. Ralph is a retard who thinks >muh ironic alcoholism which isn't even ironic is FUNNY because ummm HAHAHA FUCKING ALCOHOL DUUUUUDDDEEE LMAO

adam & pals is funny

Still hasn't been refuted.

Attached: 1549700978960.png (572x741, 565K)

This makes exactly zero sense.

*was

Sansa, it was beautiful

are they not doing it anymore?

Merk got killed

DOGGIE DIDDLING

>zoonigger argument
>ummmm if you eat them you can’t say it’s not okay to exploit them in other ways!
>but wouldn’t allowing both create more animal suffering? You are arguing to diminish animals rights even further just to get rid of “hypocrisy” in the entirely abstract space of morality and law?
>uhhhhhh b-b-but
>you do realise most people in the world aren’t middle class furfags who can easily get a onions latte whenever they want? Millions of peoples diets, and their jobs, rely on the meat industry. Millions of animals lives do too
>b-b-but!!
>so you are arguing we either undergo a major upheaval in how we eat all of a sudden, just so our morals are “consistent”, or that we actively decide to make the situation for animals even worse arbitrarily? And you care about animals ethics
>I c-c-concede!!!

absolute fucking cope

haha totally Mark English here.
yeah I remember typing all of this out on this very website haha

Based. The world isn't black and white.

yea its kinda weird how everyone accepts thats really mark without any sort of proof. he could have just posted a tweet or something

Can’t be the only one who thinks Kill Bill 1 is insanely overrated

I guess a house with local electricity offers more shelter than fucking nothing near a waterfall with a forest nearby that amplifies noises the moment you step away from the water.
Also you're going to be further from the scavanging areas, and would be unable to grow your crops to sustain a family of five.
Just throwing stuff out there.

Refute it dogfuckers

Cope.

Honestly the more you (((people))) talk about his dogfucking tendencies, the more I feel indifferent. It's like a nice session of CBT, after 20 times you barely feel a thing cuz you lose the feeling in your balls.

You sure are bothered over some nobody you don't even know. Why not leave the thread if our quality discussions don't suit your standards?

If you think it's ok to eat animals, then you have no argument against fucking them.

fact.

Attached: 1551257051719.jpg (1151x1536, 168K)

That's what he gets for not caring about his reputation. If you have large following and talk about fucking dogs, that's the kinda fame you get.

FIDO NO

Attached: AHAHAHAHAHA.png (151x55, 10K)

I think it's a pretty sound argument t b h

why does everyone make out like yms wants to fuck puppies up the ass until they rip apart from his tiny cock? when all he really wants is to be knotted by a pitbull until it gets bored and leaves to find a child to maul.

Attached: 1556485551971.jpg (736x664, 114K)

people are fucking IDIOTS, it's so fucking embarrassing
I see this shit happen all the time

Mark English is such a kino name

Not an argument
Then you are retarded

Pedo tier logic that is impossible to apply to the real world

All zoofags can do is ignore arguments kek
Pathetic brainlets

i haven't seen you give me an argument big guy

I just linked it. If you don’t want to address it, fine, but all that does is prove how dumb you faggots are

>channel made in 2008
Since he's 19-21 years old right now, that means he made the channel when he was 8-10 years old. Meaning that since he named his channel that, he was probably making shit even back then. Meanwhile what have you contributed to film? His stuff isn't all that good, but he's improving and is clearly passionate about it. He's never going to make it big (probably for the best) but I wouldn't be surprised if he turns into a decent indie director after a few years

>Hey guys it's Adam with another quickie review i don't have to edit
>The cinematography was alright
>The acting was bad
>The pacing was inconsistent
>There was this one scene where a character is playing the guitar and they didnt show his hands, but I know he didnt actually play the note that we hear. It ruined the movie for me
>Please donate to my patreon, my dog had to get another abortion and they are very expensive

Your argument is flawed since you're implying that a higher number of animals being hurt is somehow a bad thing.

If you're OK with eating them, then hurting them or fucking them should be totally ok with you. Otherwise, why are you ok with slaughtering them needlessly? That's why i say that the only argument against zoophilia is from a vegan perspective.

>giving a fuck about the working class
I agree with your side but fuck the poor.

He doesn't do the editing anyways. He has someone else do it for him. It used to be Mark, but now it's someone else

>you are implying it’s a bad thing
So are you. Your argument relies on an appeal to ethics. Without that there is zero reason for hypocrisy between harming and eating them, since it doesn’t matter regardless.
>why would you be okay with slaughtering them
Maybe you are actually too dumb to understand my post. I literally explained all of this.

It’s more like it would destroy the economy is what I meant

>So are you
No, i specifically said that there's nothing wrong with hurting animals UNLESS you're a vegan.
I eat meat all day long brother. And i wouldn't say i appeal to ethics, as much as i appeal to consistency. Which i think is pretty fucking important when forming opinions on something.

dont forget
>this one time a character made a decision influenced by their emotions, i don't understand that, its so stupid. Like WHAT. This movie is so retarded.

>unless you are a vegan
This is moral subjectivity, you are implying morality is right in relation to the morals of an individual, not only is this idea retarded, it means you can’t criticise anyone’s moral beliefs since they are valid according to that individual. How does hypocrisy make sense if morality varies depending on what I personally do?
>I wouldn’t say I appeal to ethics
Yes you do. You can’t point to the meat industry without making a statement that there is some form of moral hypocrisy, AKA at least one of these things is “wrong” and therfore the other should be considered the same
>consistency
Already addressed. In an abstract space of law or ethics this makes zero sense, laws are not consistent, they are to protect individual rights and promote stability, often these things can appear “hypocritical” but since they exist in an entirely abstract space they aren’t at all. Again, arguing to reduce animal rights and increase suffering, as well as fuck up the economy for “consistency” is retarded and contradictory.

To your first point: I don't believe in one single correct moral code. I think there's a lot of different internally consistent moral positions you can have, and veganism is one of those, while meat-eating is the other. But as it stands, to be consistent as a meat-eater, you also have to allow beastiality in order to be consistent.
But hey, if you don't want to be consistent in your moral system then there's no reason arguing with you.

To your second point: I'm not saying one of those things are "wrong", I'm saying they are morally inconsistent. Inconsistent and wrong are two different things.

To your third point: If you really don't mind having contradicting viewpoints across any of your opinions, then this discussion is going to go nowhere, as you lack the fundamental idea of what it means to have a solid moral system.

>morality and moral views are subjective but must uphold to my ideas of consistency (even when people argue against that and I don’t fully address it)
Explain this. Explain how varying moral codes can be valid, and simultaneously their validity comes from an external judgement of “consistency”? This makes no sense at all
>morally inconsistent
Then you are fundamentally saying at least one of them is wrong, or there is no inconsistency
>contradicting viewpoints
That’s you. This discussion is going nowhere because you are out of your depth and never really refuted my first post

I don't like Ralph, IHE, or YMS's individual content all that much anymore, but I enjoy Sardonicast consistently. They range from normie to pretentious so they keep each other in check, and they seem pretty comfortable with no-selling bad bits.

>dogfucker is also a sophistic edgelord
Well, color me surprised.

Great British Podcast is better. Except Pizzaface, he talks like a faggot.

>Nobody lives in a soundproof mixing studio
You don't know that
>Let alone the waterfall
See >And somehow the printing press still ran
Probably while that part of the country had not already been invaded and there was fighting going on to contain the spread of the creatures.
You complain about things not making sense while making only very superficial observation. Come on man. I'm sure you're better than this.

To be honest, all this movie critic thing got old for me. It was fun for a while, but I think I'd better watch the movies by myself, than listen to some incompetent faggots bragging about it.

>Explain how varying moral codes can be valid, and simultaneously their validity comes from an external judgement of “consistency”?
Ok then. here's moral system 1:
>my foundational belief is that animals should be given moral consideration, just like we do with humans
>therefore, i will refuse to eat meat and own pets, and i will do everything i can to make sure everyone does the same, since animals are sentient beings that shouldn't be exploited by humans
>I will therefore also not fuck animals, since they can't consent.

This is a valid and consistent moral belief.

Here's another one:
>my foundational belief is that animals should NOT be given moral consideration, since they lack any consciousness and are as such, worth less than humans
>therefore, i will eat meat and own pets, since animals aren't sentient beings and i can essentially treat them like objects.
>I will therefore also allow others to fuck animals, since i have essentially stripped them of any moral consideration.

There. Two opposing moral beliefs, but both are internally consistent.

Hey guys Mark English here

Holy shit you are max brainlet. This is you submitting your opinions on consistency, when the actual question is, how does it make sense for you to arbitrate consistency when saying morals are subjective to the individual? How does consistency even make sense as an argument considering that? Consistency only makes sense if you want to argue morality is not subjective, which indicates to me your views are not really concrete here.
And once again, I explained in my first post how this argument doesn’t make sense in real terms. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to want to uphold as many rights for animals as possible, and accept that while the meat industry is a bad situation, they are unable to stop it, however they have agency in not choosing to infringe further. You simultaneously have a moral subjectivist and black and white view on morality and that’s why your arguments are failing

Morality is subjective, of course, i don't think i stated otherwise. You can have a lot of different moral systems, all being equally valid. I don't see how that's so hard for you to understand. There's no one single "truth", just differing worldviews. However, those differing worldviews should be consistent to be valid for consideration.

Also, your argument that people are unable to stop the meat industry is false. If everyone on earth became vegan, the meat industry would sieze to exist.

youtu.be/cQBKUSot8B4
reminder that mark still does videos and they are way better than anything adam has shat out in years. also he doesn't fuck dogs which is a plus.

Attached: 1555028819718.gif (384x216, 1.67M)

>sieze to exist
Not even reading the exchange between you 2, but inb4 someone siezes that typo as victory

Why would I need to do that when his arguments are so shit?
Again, you aren’t explaining the flaw I literally just pointed out. Read my last post and actually address this “consistency” argument in relation to moral subjectivity. I’ll go easy on you and not ask you to prove moral subjectivity, but at least put forward a sensical model. You can repeat how you think this isn’t consistent all you want, that still makes no sense when arguing from the moral subjectivist perspective.

How long until Adam kills himself?

>address this “consistency” argument in relation to moral subjectivity
Moral subjectivity simply implies that there is no single true moral code that everything and everyone should follow. Moral subjectivity doesn't make claims about an act being objectively wrong or right.

However, just because an act isn't "wrong" in itself, doesn't mean that i can't criticize the person doing the act for not acting consistently with their moral system. Which is what I'm doing right now. I'm not saying that fucking an animal is wrong or right, I'm saying that the moral system of a meat eater should naturally include no problems with beastiality.
But i wouldn't say that your moral system is therefore "wrong", i would simply say that it's inconsistent.

So, you are an independent observer of morality dedicated to pointing out the inherent flaws in all of them? How truly gracious of you, you big cunt.

You can’t say someone’s moral code is inconsistent when adhering to subjectivism. First off, the moral code is true to the individual as in this case morals are essentially made up social etiquette with no need for consistency. Secondly, by pointing out hypocrisy you are fundamentally asserting that at least one item is morally wrong. There is zero hypocrisy otherwise.

Yeah
>morals are essentially made up social etiquette with no need for consistency
yourdictionary.com/moral-code
moral-code
Noun
(plural moral codes)
(ethics) A written, formal, and CONSISTENT set of rules prescribing righteous behavior, accepted by a person or by a group of people.

rekt

Attached: 1550713192330.gif (479x255, 2.88M)

>Yeah
Somone here needs to stop larping as a watered-down version of Socrates.

>using a definition that contradicts your own view of subjectivism
I don’t actually think morals are a code of etiquette, but that is the subjectivist stance. You don’t even understand your own point of view dude

if you see someone fucking a dog, your first thought should not be "i hope hes not a vegetarian, as to not have consistent beliefs" but "this is sick degenerate"

youtube.com/watch?v=BL6zocRmSeI
fuck yeah

based 12-hour old dogfucker thread

The consistency argument makes no sense. Your first thought should be if the dog is being taken advantage of and abused (it is)

you just said that morals are not supposed to be consistent. I just showed you an unbiased dictionary definition that clearly disagrees with you. Why not just admit you lost?

you see, I am an enlightened individual like this cunt When I see a person fucking a dog, I mostly hope that they are not contradicting themselves according to the sacred rules of dialectic logic

Holy fucking shit you are genuinely the most philosophically inept retard I’ve ever met. You have stated multiple times you are arguing from a moral subjectivist view, and then you give me a dictionary definition that actually contradicts what your own view supposedly is. So just admit you don’t understand what subjectivism actually is and you are using terms you don’t grasp fully because you are out of your depth.

Yall gotta chill

The merit of a morale value system comes from its pragmatic ability to sustain those who carry it, you can think of it like a symbiotic relationship with whatever civilization adopts it. For example we know that outright murder is "bad" because it breaks down the societal trust required for populations to thrive, we know that acts of compassion are "good" because they reinforce that societal trust.If you two want to have a constructive argument about dog fucking vs cow munching, you're better off sticking with the practical implications of each behavior rather than arguing over semantics like a couple of schoolgirls

fuck off utilitarian baby, the adults are talking

Okay then
I did do this here and he ignored it, so did you apparently

There's absolutely nothing based about degeneracy, I bet you think being a furry isn't a mental illness either.

Moral subjectivism (or moral anti-realism) just means that i don't think moral truth can be found in the material world, and are as such, limited to human opinion. The definition of a moral code i showed you did not contradict any of this. What are you talking about?
Doesn't that depend on the society we're talking about and who's doing the murder and why? Death penalty is going on right now in the USA, and that almost seems to have a positive impact on society.

Does Adam fucking or not fucking his dog interfere with his ability to critique movies?
If not, then who the fuck cares what he does in his own home?

This is why I'll never take western philisophy seriously. Fucking debate about a dog fucker, who gives a shit?

it does interfere by virtue if making him a dog fucker.

have sex (with a human)

>limited to human opinion
If it’s entirely abstract, and simply based on what is good or beneficial for a society and societal cohesion, how can it be inconsistent? Surely in this case morality is true to the circumstances with which it arose, and therfore can’t be contradictory as it is simply abstraction we have invented to promote order? How can you personally arbitrate consistency in this scenario?

>ignoring the long term stability of a value system as if that isn't a defining factor of its merit
why

>If it’s entirely abstract, and simply based on what is good or beneficial for a society and societal cohesion, how can it be inconsistent
just because your moral system is "good for society" doesn't mean it's internally consistent.
>Surely in this case morality is true to the circumstances with which it arose, and therfore can’t be contradictory as it is simply abstraction we have invented to promote order
I don't know what you're trying to say, but no, just because a moral system exists, doesn't make it "true" or "consistent". That's not a part of moral subjectivism.

>if I pamper my retarded belief with a dragged-out prose, it will make it seem less retarded

Holy shit dude. What IS consistency if morality is entirely abstract? How can you not be getting this? Re read the post throughly. You can’t just assert your own opinion about how we need consistency without explaining how that even makes sense from a subjective moral viewpoint. Surely a societies moral codes ARE consistent inherently because they are valid in regards to that societies moral codes. How can you even point out inconsistency without yourself making a moral judgement? Why is it you who gets to decide this? You have moved this argument into the conceptual and then refuse to engage with anything conceptual and repeat “muh consistency” without explaining how that even makes sense in regard to the rest of your argument

Just because something is abstract doesn't mean it can't be inconsistent dude. A simple opinion can be inconsistent. Let's say that i think to myself "I really like apples" and afterwards think "i hate all fruits because they taste bad"

This is an entirely abstract chain of events (thoughts) but they can still be contradictory. Everything can be contradictory. There's no definition of the word "contradictory" that limits it to physical concepts.

I know, and that’s what I’m asking you to addresss. Why? I am just repeating myself over and over to have you not actual reply to what I’m saying. . Surely a societies moral codes ARE consistent inherently because they are valid in regards to that societies moral codes. How can you even point out inconsistency without yourself making a moral judgement? Why is it you who gets to decide this?

I hate the color red yet own many red items.

>Surely a societies moral codes ARE consistent inherently because they are valid in regards to that societies moral codes

No, you got the wrong definition of "consistent". Just because a society collectively agrees on a moral system doesn't make that moral system consistent.

That's only inconsistent if you chose to buy those red items BECAUSE they were red.

Why is it inconsistent to dislike the colour red yet love many items that are red? Are you a robot?

But if you are a moral subjectivist, it does. A moral code is true to its own society. If that society deems it’s moral code consistent, which it must do inherently, then according to subjectivism it is. If there is some external higher moral order that arbitrates consistency then you are no longer arguing from a subjectivist perspective

It's not inconsistent if you love those objects for other reasons than their color. You can hate the color green, but love your green money because you can buy things with it. So you love the object for other reasons than its color. So it's not inconsistent.

If a society judges a moral system to be consistent, even if it's not, then that doesn't change the fact that it's inconsistent. It might not be "wrong", but it's still inconsistent. This is something all subjectivists believe. I don't know where you heard anything else.

Good, because I love my meat for the taste, but I hate dogs getting fucked in the ass by degenerates like you because it's disgusting. There, see? two completely different reasons, one might say two completely unrelated areas, food, and fucking. Did you just shoot yourself in the foot? I think you did.

But our money here is red. Why did you change the color of my currency?

In this case you would have to explain to me why fucking an animal is disgusting, but killing and eating one isn't.

Innate biological predispositions. Please explain why fucking a female isn't disgusting, but eating one is.

What the fuck then? How is morality subjective, if it’s also not subjective at all? I don’t think you understand moral subjectivism. In an internal moral system, there is internal moral consistency, it may disagree with your sense of consistency, but under subjectivism, it is true to that system or code. In this case, why are you the overall arbitrater of what is consistent, when morality is subjective? Why is your view not subjective?

user, you just explained it yourself. It's because in my moral system, I hate one for one reason and love the other for a completely different reason. Now kindly fuck off, you've been wiped off the floor several times by several people, who have showed you that being the "AKTSHUALLY" man is not only obnoxious, but can be highly detrimental to yourself if you don't have the intellectual ability to walk the walk.

...

There is no amount of rhetoric that will convince sane people that screwing a dog is ok. Sorry dog rapists, that's just how it is

>Innate biological predispositions
We also have innate biological predispositions to rape. Are you a proponent for that as well?
>Please explain why fucking a female isn't disgusting, but eating one is.
I'm not gonna make your argument for you, bucko.

>How is morality subjective, if it’s also not subjective at all
That's why a better word for it is moral anti-realism. Subjective in this context simply means that there's no objective correct morality. But just because there's no "correct" one, doesn't mean that they are all consistent. In other words, just because all apples are fruits, and apples taste good, doesn't mean that all fruits taste good.

You're literally saying "i don't like it because i don't like it". That's not an argument. Sorry bucko.

Make your own argument bucko. I've already answered that post once in this thread.

Why would anyone feel attraction towards you?

You never answered that post, you skirted every point it made

And your argument makes even less sense from an anti realist perspective. If morality is true to its own internal system, because there is no fundamental truth, it is also consistent within that system. Saying it is not consistent is either forcing your own subjective interpretation on people, or appealing to a higher authority of reason even though each system is subjective and therfore running on internal rules of consistency. If you once again ignore this whole argument and just repeat the same shit again I won’t be replying, this is arguing with a brick wall now

Yea Forums - Television & Film

>You're literally saying "i don't like it because i don't like it". That's not an argument. Sorry bucko.
I don't have to according to your position, you utter retard. You've been saying time and time again that multiple moral codes can exist and be valid and there acceptance is a matter of arbitrary choice. The only problem you see here is one of contradiction. I have just explained to you why this isn't contradictory, using your own fucking post to illustrate it. By your logic, I don't have to explain shit. You are just moving the goalpost because you want to parade yourself as some kind of wise guy that has cool contrarian opinions, but even that attempt at adding some value and personnality to your life has failed miserably, as shown ITT. Kindly stick a pound of dynamite in your mouth, you fucking poser, you are the worst breed of pseud.

>God

>If morality is true to its own internal system, because there is no fundamental truth
Morality is only true in so far as it exists. But existence alone doesn't necessitate consistency. Again, i think you need to look up consistency in the dictionary friendo.

>appealing to a higher authority of reason
If you imply that a "higher authority" is reason and logic, then sure, i appeal to that authority.

I'm actually a cute anime catgirl irl

I didn't say you were inconsistent in this specific argument, i just said that you failed to make an argument at all. When i made the green money analogy, that was an example of consistency, but not necessarily a good argument. If I wanted to, i could ask the person "why do you like green", and if he couldn't answer then his argument would fail. Just like yours did.

Not if god said it no.

>fucking a female isn't disgusting
Imagine being this much of a faggot

Ok your views are totally inconsistent and you have failed about 10 times to explain how consistency makes sense in relation to more subjectivism. I mean anyone can scroll up and see your repeated non answers and re assertion of your claim without explaining how it makes sense in your own moral view.
>if higher authority is reason and logic
>moral anti realist who arbitrates morality on logic and reason
Your stance should be that there is no inherent logic or reason to morality? This is why nobody is falling for your bullshit, your points make no sense. I would advise you re read my posts and actually decide what your more outlook is and make sure it makes sense in relation to your argument, have the last (you)

>i could ask the person "why do you like green", and if he couldn't answer then his argument would fail.
You can always trust a dogfucker to reduce a debate about morality and bestiality to a debate about aesthetics.

>Your stance should be that there is no inherent logic or reason to morality
No, being a moral anti-realist doesn't mean that i discard logic and reason when analyzing other people's moral systems. And as i said, I'm not judging other people's moral systems (consistent or not) as objectively right or wrong, I'm just analyzing them and seeing if they're internally airtight. Again, i urge you to find a definition of moral anti-realist or moral subjectivist where it says that we think all moral systems are equally consistent.

I mean, if his argument was that money is good because it is green, then yes, it would be pretty fucking important to know why he likes the color green, and get him to defend that position.
But if he likes the money for other reasons than its color, then sure, i wouldn't try to question him on it, since it's irrelevant to why he think money is good.

Mauler takes the time explain why something doesn't work or does. His entire deal is explaining why people watch a movie with mixed reception and come back from it feeling empty inside. Believe it or not, you need a consistent story for a solid movie.

>I mean, if his argument was that money is good because it is green, then yes, it would be pretty fucking important to know why he likes the color green, and get him to defend that position.
No, it wouldn't be according to you. What would be important is that he doesn't say later "I actually hate green" down the line. Don't fucking pretend like people can't read a few posts up
>But if he likes the money for other reasons than its color, then sure, i wouldn't try to question him on it, since it's irrelevant to why he think money is good.
You are literally contradicting your previous sentence. Are you actually schizophrenic?

>No, it wouldn't be according to you. What would be important is that he doesn't say later "I actually hate green" down the line. Don't fucking pretend like people can't read a few posts up
I was making a new example, but you're right, if he says that he likes money because it is green, and then later says that he hates green, that would be inconsistent. Correct.
>You are literally contradicting your previous sentence
How so?

Themes and narrative mean jackshit when the execution of a story is compromised.

Wow, you're having an argument with yourself, like all those epic comics you see on twitter. Good job! You're pretending not to understand the argument, and then phrasing it as a retort to the argument. It isn't. Pretending to be retarded is not an argument. The only way your argument is logically consistent is if you whole-heartedly believe that dog-fuckers are advocating for veganism. Are you that fucking stupid? Nobody's saying that. That's the exact point. Jesus fucking christ is this comment a fucking train wreck. What they’re saying is that society accepts killing animals, because animals don't have rights. Therefor, if animals don't have rights, they can't have their rights infringed upon; and an act is only a crime if it infringes upon the rights of others (this is true in any first world country). You are protected from rape by the fact that you have a right to bodily autonomy. Other crimes that might violate your right to bodily autonomy would be mutilation, or murder. If you can’t murder it, and you can’t mutilate it, then you can’t rape it. It’s that fucking simple. Animals are either simply the property of man, to do with as we please, or they aren’t. It’s one of the other. Why don’t you just admit that you want to make things you don’t like illegal, and you have no other reason for outlawing them other than that you don’t like them? Is it because you know on an intrinsic level that authoritarianism causes nothing but suffering to innocent people?

>Believe it or not, you need a consistent story for a solid movie.
Not really Black Panther has a ton of plot holes but thematically worked and got no outrage over it

(you)

Honestly, all of this debate makes me glad Adam (me, the poster in this thread) started the discussion.

I'm glad you (Adam, the poster) admit that legalizing dogfucking is an important matter of debate for you.

alcohol, if you watch any stream of him with cam he chugs it down like crazy, always some sugary alcoholic shit

Not an argument.

yeah but it's yucky so you're wrong

Scoot > Mark

No one thinks highly enough of you and your retarded opinion to present you with an actual argument. Suck my cock, this isn't a court of law.

are you fucking crazy? reads like a serial killer wrote this.

Actually, dozens of people in this thread cared enough to argue against my opinion (you're probably one of them), even if that opinion was being expressed by others. I think you just can't refute my post, so you're claiming that you never wanted to in the first place.

That's quite the castle in the air you're building there, buddy. But at least you've just admitted that you've been doing this whole thing for attention.

>Gameplay commentary videos

Attached: regret.gif (225x183, 810K)

This.
Themes are nice and all, but consistent believable world is a fundament for any story.
You don't have to follow real world logic, but you have to follow some kind of logic.
Any 12-year-old can come up with TLJ-tier ideas, but not every man can create ANH.

a new hope had plotholes as well nostalgiafag

Pretending I said words that I never said, nor implied, is not an argument.

"No!"
you're actually fucking retarded if you like the prequels and I wont tolerate your contrarionism. The reason the phrase "but your brain did" took off in the Plinkett reviews is because he is using the science of screenwriting to formulate his critique and objectively speaking the Phaton Menace doesnt even have a main character which is the most fundemental flaw a movie can have. So from there on, you can nitpick it to shit and you're probably familiar with all the jokes, but the trilogy is built on a foundation of shit and is therefor shit for hundreds of reasons im not even bringing up.

and getting your debating skills from Molymeme is pretty pathetic, but here we are.

>you just can't refute my post
Adam, please stop having sex with animals

>a story has to have a main character
Pulp fiction has as many MC's as Phantom Menace. Neither does Babel. Or the ballad of buster scruggs.

Those are explicitly anthologies, small stories (each with their own main characters) presented in a group. TPM is not an anthology film.

your mom is though.
with my dick.

Very much untrue, when you analyze 99% of succesful and well told films they have opening and closing scenes with the main character, indicating some kind of growth or change has occuered which is the STORY. Tarantino admits to basing his screenplay structure off books, which is inherently unique to him. Using Tarantino's existence as a band aid for the prequels is logically inconsistent as the prequels have more in common with a blockbuster than Jackie Brown. I can do this all day.

>it's tarantino so it doesn't count
look at this argument and laugh at it.

Spewing insults, and then literally, openly refusing to provide an argument, is pathetic. You're talking like this is a debate. This is no longer a debate, because you’ve lost, and now you're just flailing like a retard to give yourself the mental wiggle-room to convince yourself you’ve won. This is you doing damage control, and nothing else. Stop replying to me unless you have something to say, I’m not interested in helping you calm down.

not an argument, explain to me how everyone else in existence is working off Tarantino and or mimicking him or in what ways the prequel trilogy is complimentary to his writing style. You can't, becuase the story isn't there to support any claim you may make.

HOUND HUMPER

Read

i never said tarantino had the same style as the prequels. I said that not having a main character doesn't mean a movie is bad. That's literally all i've said..