Support NeoGAF

[DS_Joost]

No lol, let's quote him again so we can understand better.



So, we have
1) I'm ok with the logic that two consenting adults activities are none of my business if they aren't harming anyone, BUT
2) I'm not sure how it could be proven the eaten was sane.
3) 2 examples of proofs of soundness of mind that the poster wouldn't accept

I'm still seeing him agree in point 1 that the logic is sound provided the people are sane.

But the people aren't SANE. So you disprove your own point here. He is saying he is ok with it if the people are sane, however he says those people are actually insane. Thus saying that he is not okay with it BECAUSE THEY ARE INSANE.

You are insulting me. My intelligence specifically.

I'm gonna kill myself now...

 

[Nymphae]

But the people aren't SANE. So you disprove your own point here. He is saying he is ok with it if the people are sane, however he says those people are actually insane. Thus saying that he is not okay with it BECAUSE THEY ARE INSANE.

I'm gonna kill myself now...

Holy shit man. So if I ask this poster, hypothetically if they are sane, you still are ok with it in theory right?

 

[DS_Joost]

Someone please help me here whilst I bang my head against a wall...

Congratulations. You managed to turn the thread into a relentless pile of garbage. I'm done with you. Maybe someone else has the energy left to pick this up, but I'm done.

I know I've done my fair share fueling this, but I'm done now. Maybe the thread can actually be worth something again.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Should I be getting in touch with the authorities about nymphae possibly being a cannibal?

 

[bilderberg]

I don't think this example works since we are talking about murdering and then eating someone. Thats a far ways away from having someone sleep with your SO.

I am not into the cuck thing, seems like its a great way to ruin a relationship but if people can make it work all the power to them. And if they can't make it work then it will be a life lesson to them that fantasy does not always equal reality.

I'm confused. Cannibalism? Not just a dude eating some other dude's ass? wtf is wrong with people

 

[bigedole]

I would like to offer a counterargument to the idea that "it isn't harmful, therefore why should we interfere?"

Part of our responsibility to the human species is to pass down tools and frameworks to the next generation to help them survive and thrive. We want our children to have good lives and for the social structure to support that effort. Obviously, nothing is perfect and we cannot always hold back just because it might negatively effect another group. In this case, society is normalizing and turning a blind eye to the breakdown of the monogamous relationship, something we've successfully used to build societies since pre-history. Monogamy has helped both men and women, though it has also been used as leverage to oppress.

Sexual freedom has allowed many people to better express themselves and find deeper satisfaction in their relationships, that much is obvious. But it doesn't mean that all sexual freedom is therefore an inherent good. You can take things too far. Things can go from "fetish" to "deviancy" with long-term consequences that do not immediately show up. I'd argue that cuckoldry is one such case.

Now, if you're rolling your eyes and thinking "not another outcry asking me to 'think of the children'", I can respect that. I just think it's worth exploring whether or not "does not immediately harm or seem to cause short-term harm" as our sole criterion is going to result in the best future for our species.

For context, this "do no harm" line of thinking has prevented us from breaking away from fossil fuels. "It's not literally killing the planet today, so why worry?"

I think you're tackling a subject that I've been struggling with myself. I've always been very libertarian in my approach to life, let people live how they want as long as they don't harm/infringe upon the rights of another individual. But the utilitarian in me definitely acknowledges that that does not gauruntee the "best" possible outcome. per se. Maybe it would end up being the "most right" outcome? But it would not lead to the most happiness for the most individuals. But then is the most happiness for the most individuals the right goal to be striving for? If monogamy has an evolutionary/cultural benefit than it will survive and persist the same as all social traits do, I guess. It's a really tough question in general (not just monogamy, but the basic comparison of free will/liberty vs outcome) and I love thinking about it and seeing other people try to reason it out too.

I'm just saying dude, I've literally heard people try to justify incest, pedophilia, and canabalism with this exact logic, and if you agree with the premise that you have no business interfering with things that "don't harm other people", I don't see how you tell them they're wrong.

You can literally see people come to these conclusions. One of the first posters who replied to me said:



This is strange to me, and I think this is what happens when people place too much emphasis on not wanting to rock the boat, not wanting to judge. This poster literally thinks this logic is sound.

I'm trying to be intellectually consistent in my thought process, for sure, and I acknowledge this is a situation that makes me look pretty silly, but there it is. I generally believe that if someone wants to die (and a qualified doctor testifies to their sanity) that they have a moral right to the agency of their life. The natural consequence follows that I must be ok with the hypothetical situation you've suggested, in theory. I tried to qualify that by saying I think it'd be extremely difficult to actually have such a situation pass a reality test and that the eater going to jail is the appropriate natural outcome.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Maybe I am a traditionalist, but if you are going to take a vow of sexual exclusivity (which is common to most marriages, but granted not all), then both parties must be willing to be sexually exclusive and not to neglect one another. Neglect is infidelity.

It may not be about neglect or unwillingness to please, it may be about capability and insatiableness.

Women hit their stride when men start declining. Highly sexual strong couples expand their horizons. Many things.

 

[cryptoadam]

I'm confused. Cannibalism? Not just a dude eating some other dude's ass? wtf is wrong with people

Nope the poster was trying to get a gotcha moment by comparing consensual sexual acts with fucking EATING people. I am not into cucking but its a huge leap to go from cucking to murdering and then eating someone.

 

[Nymphae]

I'm trying to be intellectually consistent in my thought process, for sure, and I acknowledge this is a situation that makes me look pretty silly, but there it is. I generally believe that if someone wants to die (and a qualified doctor testifies to their sanity) that they have a moral right to the agency of their life. The natural consequence follows that I must be ok with the hypothetical situation you've suggested, in theory. I tried to qualify that by saying I think it'd be extremely difficult to actually have such a situation pass a reality test and that the eater going to jail is the appropriate natural outcome.

Thanks for clarifying! I understood you completely, but there was some confusion as DS_Joost seemed to feel I was saying you are ok with the acts of canabalism in that story. Whereas it was pretty clear to me you were saying that to be consistent with your positions, you would have to say that you had no business telling them what they were able to do freely with their own bodies, even though you likely disagree with the practice and also questioned the sanity of the two people involved.

 

[DS_Joost]

Thanks for clarifying! I understood you completely, but there was some confusion as DS_Joost seemed to feel I was saying you are ok with the acts of canabalism in that story. Whereas it was pretty clear to me you were saying that to be consistent with your positions, you would have to say that you had no business telling them what they were able to do freely with their own bodies, even though you likely disagree with the practice and also questioned the sanity of the two people involved.

Don't go playing victim now. You literally did. Read your own post. You said you heard people literally defending such practises and was very willing to use Bigedole as an example.

Don't try to talk yourself out of it and paint me as the asshole. Have some decency.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think you're tackling a subject that I've been struggling with myself. I've always been very libertarian in my approach to life, let people live how they want as long as they don't harm/infringe upon the rights of another individual. But the utilitarian in me definitely acknowledges that that does not gauruntee the "best" possible outcome. per se. Maybe it would end up being the "most right" outcome? But it would not lead to the most happiness for the most individuals. But then is the most happiness for the most individuals the right goal to be striving for? If monogamy has an evolutionary/cultural benefit than it will survive and persist the same as all social traits do, I guess. It's a really tough question in general (not just monogamy, but the basic comparison of free will/liberty vs outcome) and I love thinking about it and seeing other people try to reason it out too.

There are no easy answers. I am not Libertarian but I understand the mentality. I find it fascinating how the ideology has found friends in camps across the spectrum which indicates there are much deeper issues than what is portrayed on CNN, USA Today, Times, and Fox News.

Note how both Conservatives (usually based on religion) and Progressives (based on the desire for Gov't to regulate) will attack Libertarian's hands-off approach, each in their own way. Conservatives tend to attack the loose morality (drugs? sex with anyone? It isn't hurting anyone?) and Progressives attack the stance on authority (you don't think the Gov't should step in? You don't believe in Affirmative Action?). I think it's because Conservatives tend to believe in authority/morality coming from God or at least Higher Values. Progressives tend to believe in an authority/morality rooted in vox populi and enforced by the Government. On both ends there is a desire for authority and morality.

I think where Libertarians fall down -- and where they push away allies from both camps -- is they tend to take a very... open stance on morality and authority. There's either a dismissal of previous moral systems or an insistence that they aren't necessary in the first place, often both from the same person. While ideal and perhaps provable in thought experiments, every person has at least a handful of examples where Libertarianism would have failed them. No one actually believes in "the good of all" because it isn't true, a "naturally-evolved" common goodwill will never happen, therefore you cannot base an ideology/social-construct upon something that doesn't exist.

 

[bigedole]

There are no easy answers. I am not Libertarian but I understand the mentality. I find it fascinating how the ideology has found friends in camps across the spectrum which indicates there are much deeper issues than what is portrayed on CNN, USA Today, Times, and Fox News.

Note how both Conservatives (usually based on religion) and Progressives (based on the desire for Gov't to regulate) will attack Libertarian's hands-off approach, each in their own way. Conservatives tend to attack the loose morality (drugs? sex with anyone? It isn't hurting anyone?) and Progressives attack the stance on authority (you don't think the Gov't should step in? You don't believe in Affirmative Action?). I think it's because Conservatives tend to believe in authority/morality coming from God or at least Higher Values. Progressives tend to believe in an authority/morality rooted in vox populi and enforced by the Government. On both ends there is a desire for authority and morality.

I think where Libertarians fall down -- and where they push away allies from both camps -- is they tend to take a very... open stance on morality and authority. There's either a dismissal of previous moral systems or an insistence that they aren't necessary in the first place, often both from the same person. While ideal and perhaps provable in thought experiments, every person has at least a handful of examples where Libertarianism would have failed them. No one actually believes in "the good of all" because it isn't true, a "naturally-evolved" common goodwill will never happen, therefore you cannot base an ideology/social-construct upon something that doesn't exist.

I don't want to derail this topic further, but I like you as a poster so I want to respond. I can't speak for all libertarians, but it's not that we think morals are unneeded, just that it's not the government's job to enforce them. My thoughts on pretty much every matter boil down to whether or not I think such a thing is the right of the individual or whether or not the government has a reasonable mandate to be involved in that transaction. My default position is generally that people should be allowed to do things that have negative consequences on their own life provided they don't infringe upon other's rights. As I've grown older, I look at the natural outcomes of many positions I believe in (legalized drugs, sexual liberation, free markets to name a tiny few) and I lament their clearly negative impacts on society, but that alone does not convince me they are wrong. Philosophically, I don't know if it's better to be right for the wrong reasons or wrong for the right reasons. I ultimately strive to be a force of positivity and good outcomes for my own life and those I interact with, and hope I raise my children to do the same.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I don't want to derail this topic further, but I like you as a poster so I want to respond. I can't speak for all libertarians, but it's not that we think morals are unneeded, just that it's not the government's job to enforce them. My thoughts on pretty much every matter boil down to whether or not I think such a thing is the right of the individual or whether or not the government has a reasonable mandate to be involved in that transaction. My default position is generally that people should be allowed to do things that have negative consequences on their own life provided they don't infringe upon other's rights. As I've grown older, I look at the natural outcomes of many positions I believe in (legalized drugs, sexual liberation, free markets to name a tiny few) and I lament their clearly negative impacts on society, but that alone does not convince me they are wrong. Philosophically, I don't know if it's better to be right for the wrong reasons or wrong for the right reasons. I ultimately strive to be a force of positivity and good outcomes for my own life and those I interact with, and hope I raise my children to do the same.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll re-read it and respond via PM, then.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

It may not be about neglect or unwillingness to please, it may be about capability and insatiableness.

Women hit their stride when men start declining. Highly sexual strong couples expand their horizons. Many things.

How old do you think men are when they start "declining"? I mean men stay virile up until death...

Women hit their sexual "peak" in their 30s. I mean hell, I'm 36 and haven't notified much a a decline in my potency ;p

 

[Vicetrailia]

How old do you think men are when they start "declining"? I mean men stay virile up until death...

Women hit their sexual "peak" in their 30s. I mean hell, I'm 36 and haven't notified much a a decline in my potency ;p

For women it's 40s, men start declining at 33ish. It's why a 40 year old woman is far more dangerous than a similar man in the sack. But also remember that kids hurt, so for women it looks more like a U, than a constant rise. But you also gotta remember that a freak is a freak, man or woman .

 

[Nymphae]

Don't go playing victim now. You literally did. Read your own post. You said you heard people literally defending such practises and was very willing to use Bigedole as an example.

Don't try to talk yourself out of it and paint me as the asshole. Have some decency.

Here is what I said:

I'm just saying dude, I've literally heard people try to justify incest, pedophilia, and canabalism with this exact logic, and if you agree with the premise that you have no business interfering with things that "don't harm other people", I don't see how you tell them they're wrong.

You can literally see people come to these conclusions. One of the first posters who replied to me said:

Sigh. Again, here I am not saying he is defending incest, pedophilia, or canabalism, but that because he agrees with the premise that you have no business interfering with things that "don't harm other people", he is coming to the (awkward even to himself) conclusion that he cannot tell them they are wrong -

I'm trying to be intellectually consistent in my thought process, for sure, and I acknowledge this is a situation that makes me look pretty silly, but there it is.

 

[DavidGzz]

At first I could not believe that it's 20% of men but then I remembered how many swingers I know of and it makes sense. Heh

 

[5secondrulesucks]

At first I could not believe that it's 20% of men but then I remembered how many swingers I know of and it makes sense. Heh

eh its probably waaaay smaller than that. they dont actually say what 20 percent means other than 'fantasize'. is it 20 percent who watch the porn or is it who actually engages in cuckery. it goes on to say its the second most watched porn. so clearly the stats mean nothing in this article

 

[DavidGzz]

eh its probably waaaay smaller than that. they dont actually say what 20 percent means other than 'fantasize'. is it 20 percent who watch the porn or is it who actually engages in cuckery. it goes on to say its the second most watched porn. so clearly the stats mean nothing in this article

I meant even the fantasizing. It's so messed up I didn't believe even that.

 

[Cato]

I meant even the fantasizing. It's so messed up I didn't believe even that.

I can tell you right now.
Just for scientific reasons, a friend of mine has been keeping track carefully about what is trending on YouPorn.com.
He tells me that cuckoid videos are never trending. They are down there in the bottom where high-heels-stomping-hamsters and furrie movies resides.

I can't confirm. I just re-tell what my friend said.
Also, he said he never laughs at cucks. He thinks it is normal and nothing funny about being a cuck.

 

[ar0s]

I'm just curious where the line is drawn for people who say "it's none of my business, the consenting parties wanted this."

I understand what you're saying obviously (and think those are great laws lol!), but I'm not satisfied that response defeats the the logic. Yes our current laws make this sort of thing illegal, but again, who are we, or the law, to tell two consenting people, who are not involving other people at all, what they can do with their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes?

I get what your point is and it's very interesting, not sure what people are reacting to as you're not discussing cuckolding.

I have thought about this for a few minutes and am guessing the different feelings are due to the fact that anyone who would sacrifice their life to be eaten (therefore not getting any pleasure as they are dead) are clearly mentally ill.

If we are talking about cutting off a segment of them to cook and eat, it is already legal.

Even in terms of the murder, I think if a doctor was involved to assess and study the individual wanting to be eaten and came to the conclusion that, with very strict guidelines, he is sane then I think it is acceptable.

However, I seriously doubt anyone who wants to be killed and eaten is fully understanding what is going on, as their fantasy involves some kind of feeling/existence which simply would not be there once killed. I would be surprised if anyone who wants to be killed and eaten is in sound mind.

If one is not in sound mind, it's not truly between consenting adults.

That is my thoughts on the matter - I would guess that's the breakdown of the reason people react so harshly to this instead of pondering it. Therefore the question about it being between consenting adults is false, as inherently it can never be.

Happy to read your thoughts/response and see if we can go deeper on this.

edit: DS_Joost love the use of the word 'dingus'

 

[ar0s]

Which basically meant that you yourself had an excuse to be a huge dick. A divine excuse.

Gods were not something to be emulated and strived for back then as they are now. The gods represented all kinds of things, such as gods of death but it did not mean it was fine or encouraged to kill people at random. It may have been holy when lightning struck your house and killed your wife and kids, but it certainly wasn't celebrated and revered.

I suspect that like someone else said, gods with many wives reflected the top of society and not the common man. Probably to ensure that people did not rebel against the hedonistic rulers. As the gods did it, you could not reasonably go and kill the upper classes. However I seriously doubt it was looked on positively or gave any normal person carte blanche to go ahead and do the same.

Anyone an expert on ancient societies here?

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I can tell you right now.
Just for scientific reasons, a friend of mine has been keeping track carefully about what is trending on YouPorn.com.
He tells me that cuckoid videos are never trending. They are down there in the bottom where high-heels-stomping-hamsters and furrie movies resides.

I can't confirm. I just re-tell what my friend said.
Also, he said he never laughs at cucks. He thinks it is normal and nothing funny about being a cuck.

Are you that friend? I won't judge you. A man can get lonely.

 

[prag16]

What the devil is going on in here?

On topic, hey, whatever floats people's boat. But personally no thanks. Unless I'm the one banging some dude's hot wife. In that case, the scenario become more compelling (but not without my wife's approval which obviously would never happen, therefore we're back at square one lol).

 

[A.Romero]

I don't understand why people get so upset with stuff like this. People like to fuck around, monogamy is not for everyone.

Regardless of what we think individually, if monogamy was the only way to live, there wouldn't be so much cheating all the time and everywhere.