Anatoly Karlin @powerfultakes
Replying to @RichardHanania
I'm against legalizing bestiality because the animal consent problem hasn't been solved, but probably actually will be quite soon thanks to Al (at least for the higher animals with complex languages). So why not wait a few more years. I don't see disgust as a good reason. It was an evolutionary adaptation of the agricultural era against the spread of zoonotic illnesses, but technology will soon make that entirely irrelevant as well.
There's no animal I'm aware of that has a mental capacity beyond that of a child. We don't think children are capable of giving consent - are we clearing the way to legalise paedophilia too, or are there animals with the mental capacity to provide informed consent that only lack the ability to communicate that consent?
Spoiler: It's not a communication issue. If this technocratic psycho was more concerned with actually contemplating the morality of the question, and less focused on rearranging the insides of a parrot, his takes might be a little less monstrous.
It's always funny realizing those who think they're asking the tough questions that others aren't smart enough to consider only ever talk about the same handful of topics: putting down minorities, advocating white supremacy, whining about anyone to the left of Pinochet and fucking animals/kids.
Like that's 95% of the content on the Motte or "I"DW.
lgbt rights bad because Chesterton fence something something.
also
Consent standards:
(╯°o°）╯︵ ┻━┻
(ᕗ ͠° ਊ ͠° )ᕗ [dolphussy]
A bit of a tangent but I loathe the Chesterton's fence argument. Not only does it shift the burden of proof to proving a negative ("show me this thing is not actually beneficial") but it straight up demands you to make the conservative argument for them. Before you get rid of this bad thing, please demonstrate your understanding of why it's good actually!
I find it's a great way to figure out who to immediately stop listening to.
a cursed idea I just had: chesterton's fence is the engine of sealioning