Adam is back at it again. animals can totally consent btw
old.reddit.com
Adam is back at it again. animals can totally consent btw
old.reddit.com
Other urls found in this thread:
old.reddit.com
twitter.com
dog
fucker
totally normal thing to think
there was already a dogfucker thread
what the fuck is his problem
he fucks dogs
it's all just philosophy! you know, plato sat around thinking about drinking horse cum all day!
Why can't animals consent to sex but can consent to being eaten?
some facts:
he's successful, you're not
he's rich, you're poor
he's sociable, you're sociallet
he fucks many things, you fuck nothing
own it, repeat it, move on
that seems more up Diogenes' (literal) alley
HOUND
POUND
Holy shit, stay s e e t h i n g , Adam
He fucks dogs till they're crippled, I don't. Wow user, now I see it, thaks
and here i was thinking people were exaggerated what he previously said, this is truly despicable
he fucks dogs
old.reddit.com
Just swap out "animals" for "children" and his argument falls apart
updog
>favorite film is The Holy Mountain
>calls David Lynch pretentious
>Adum is actually so assmad he’s larping as a fan to defend he fucked up fetish on another website
HAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>couldn't watch eraserhead without blacking out from drinking
>refused to start at the beginning again
No wonder lynch has such distain for plebs like adam
Lmao Adam
>23 points
he puts dick in dog butt
he's a staunch atheist, that's the root of why he supports this shit and doesn't see it as immoral
this
he fucks dogs
how is he not in jail? should be illegal to be a dog molesting faggot
>he's rich
>he's sociable
>he fucks many things
all bullshit
>hypothetical
>profile pic is cropped from a pic where a dude in a fursuit is sucking dick
>furries are notorious animal fuckers and pedophiles
>hypothetical
Like going to a tumblr convention and believing someone when they call eating three pizzas at once a hypothetical situation.
But he hates the rich.
He's being beep boop robo autistic about it, but he's not advocating fucking animals. He's just saying in the moral framework where "consent" ins the end all be all of the morality of sexual acts jacking off a horse for controlled breeding is no different than jacking it off because you're a degenerate. He's right in that the law really is punishing the degenerate for being a degenerate rather than any offense caused to the horse which is the moral assumption. In the liberal zeitgeist this is wrong because basing morality around consent vs non consent is more "valid" than basing it around sexual purity vs perversion.
Where he's wrong is yes, it's completely valid to make jacking off a horse illegal because you get off on it only because it's degenerate and to argue other wise is coming from a stunted moral framework that arbitrarily prioritizes a few moral foundations over all others.
This. Without God it's moral relativism. And if an animal enjoys you fucking it, who's to say that's wrong?