.

sort of. it's also sort of a break from the more serious discussion. and it's something i've actually thought about so it seemed like a good time to bring it up.

May make?

Now *this* is the kind of crazy **** that ought to be in UNCHAINED. A+ thread.

ewwwwwwwwww

Expect I think spank wouldn't allow it since it's not related enough to politics.

Yet, at least.

What about the dog? Was he okay afterwards?

Probably went to a vet if anything.

In another thread I lamented that I feared nothing was ever accomplished in political discussions. Even if correct about the other stuff, this is a clear exception. Gizmo may have just prevented someone reading this actual physical harm from happening, unaware of the locking" problem.

We don't treat dogs here

:/

Ikestoys, whom I seldom agree with, greatly simplified my life and reduced my daily stress levels by way of discussing the topic of genetically modified food, complete with sources and cites, in politics main

This is actually a really good question, because it needs us to define 2 things. a) the relation of animals to humans and b) the notion of consent.

a) There are several concepts you may want to choose from what differentiates humans from animals:
1. Humans are something inherently different from animals
1.1 Religion (Humans are in another category as animals because it is in the bible)
1.2 Some mental capacity or potential mental capacity
2. Capability to feel pain
3. Being a living thing edit; with some natural inborn "wants".
4. Being a part of an ecosystem, so nothing

b) Consent being:
1. Yes I want to xy happen in written or spoken form
2. Yes by concludent behaviour
(And there is more, I just try to limit my thought process).

So you have to agree on combinations of a and b.

Speciesist

Anatomy is different even!

I'm not so convinced that nothing ever happens. For starters, consider that most threads (and most political arguments) have more spectators than participants. There is an audience, and they are presumably being swayed one way or another even if the opposing arguers aren't, and even if the audience themselves aren't aware of it.

As an example, missiledog/shame trolly is often ridiculed for almost anything he posts. Not many people engage him seriously, and he doesn't really help his cause when he gets fixated on weird crap (like LirvA) or molests the font color palette. However, he is relentless in pushing certain topics, and if you pay attention over the course of a few years you notice that there are quite a few areas where his influence has become a normalized part of forum discussion without most people remembering he was the source.

I feel my Youtube of Chimpstare face-f***ing a frog belongs ITT.

Almost mentioned it earlier tbh

wtf how would we avoid meat deficiency if we don't eat meat?

I draw the line at hugs and kisses.

your post if the op wasnt red

it should all be illegal

And if a human male gets penetrated by a monkey, then he can give the little fellow the same treatment then?

Didn't know I had all those political ideas in my head.

If virtually everybody shares the same idea, there won't be much politics. Change the thread title to "Re: I do not believe human men should have sex with other men", then you get politics.

Don't be ridiculous.