Things you will always defend.

[Abomination]

The "Golden Rule". Do unto others as you would wish done unto you. That also means respecting how other people wish to be treated when they treat you a certain way. It does get a bit complex. If someone treats me in a manner I wouldn't want to be treated I need to respect that the person treating me in such a manner might also want to be treated the way they are treating me. This can lead to a sort of paradox and one needs to understand that and respect it.

Unfortunately I do not have many things I feel needed "defended", rather there are stances I will "attack". I feel that you can not help society by defending a position, rather one must go on the offensive against things that would seek to undermine the position you hold dear.

The one thing I will always attack is emotionally driven arguments - these frequently inhabit many recent hot topics and the emotionally driven arguments tend to oppose the "Golden Rule".

 

[HoneyVision]

The right to make jokes about "inappropriate" subjects.

Acceptance rather than intolerance.

Acceptance and intolerance aren't antonyms. I'd switch out acceptance with tolerance!

The right to decide where each cent of our tax goes/doesn't go.

That doesn't sound very practical..

Who said I was intending them to be antonyms? But it's very reassuring to know that you know your prefixes well.

As for the tax issue, my government takes enormous taxes from people's wages (as well as Goods tax) and puts them into certain things that either no one or a very small percentage of the country benefits from. Which is the very epitome of impracticality.

 

[HoneyVision]

snip

Cannibalism is a barbaric practice that usually involves the death and murder of someone to achieve it. That is pretty undefendable if you ask me. Necrophilia is often done without consent, which also makes it illegal and wrong by definition. If the deceased gave written permission for the deed before they died, then a case could be argued there, but as it is, it cannot be defended. Suicide I believe shouldn't be illegal. Help should be given to contemplators, and every effort should be done to try and sway their decision, to convince them that it is not worth it. But if they themselves do not wish to live on this earth, then that should be their choice and theirs alone. I guess suicide is much more grayer than the first two in this regard. Bestiality, as I said, is a topic I haven't yet come to a solid opinion of. It's something I still need to think about and form a conclusive stance on, so I can't really say right now about that. Scat and piss fetishes are not problematic in the least. As long as they're consented and done between legal adults, I see absolutely no problem with it.

As for the question, of course a line must be drawn. Whenever consent isn't given, and it's forced. If it borders on harming people and mistreatment. Things like that. I do not believe we have the right to oppress other people's sexual lives just because we find it "icky" or gross. Many people find feet to be a disgusting part of the body, should foot fetishism be looked down upon or made criminal? No, no way in hell. That extends to the previous ones you mentioned, scat and piss (I forgot the proper terms). If two or more people are of legal age and they consent to it, then they aren't harming anyone else in their sexual indulgences and I see no rational reason to oppress them for it.

As I said, there are numerous groups of people that practice mutual cannibalism, that is they mutilate themselves and give consent to other group members to eat their parts/flesh.
Why would we care if the dead gave permission or not? They're dead. And once they're dead, their bodies are legally owned by their families, who could use it or capitalize on it in any way they wanted.
Again, bestiality is easy to support. There ARE people out there who have trained their pets/livestock to engage in sexual acts without force. Both parties can give consent.
It's really not that hard to argue that all these should be legal and completely socially acceptable.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

You just said the bodies of the deceased are legally owned by their families (which I wasn't aware about), which still makes cannibalism undefendable because it would be without consent, unless the family AND the deceased (while still alive) gave express permission, then an argument supporting it could arise. Such a situation would be so damn few and far between, however. Bestiality again comes with consent issues. There is no way for animals to consent to humans, so it is seen as rape. However, in many cases that I've seen/heard of, it's the animal that ends up penetrating the human, so it could almost be considered the opposite. It generally falls under animal abuse at any rate, which is illegal. It's still something I need more time to think about, however.

The problem that arises here in these fields (and which didn't arise with fetishes) is the lack of consent. Or the lack of understood consent (can an animal truly consent to sex with a human? I'm not entirely sure). Consent is something that CAN be completely and utterly given in an incest relationship. It absolutely can.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Social/racial equality.
Gay rights.
Respect for all woman/their likes and their dislikes.
Doing childish fun things as a responsible adult.
The facts that God exists. (COME AT ME)
Atheists.
Gun ownership, and while we're at it... video game ownership.

Spoiler

Gaming related ones:
CoD
The fact that DmC is an abomination to gaming, writing, and every classic likable protagonist.
The fact that Persona 4 is the greatest thing to ever come out of any entertainment medium.
Gaming as an art form.

OT: Reboots and spinoffs.

I can't tell you how many times I saw people hating DmC and Metal Gear Rising because of "how different" they were from previous games in their overarching franchises. Spinoffs in particular get an undeserved bad wrap. If it weren't for spinoffs, Persona would never have existed. Devil May Cry wouldn't exist, because it was originally going to be a spinoff of Resident Evil.

The hate Metal Gear Rising got should have never even been a thing. People wanted to play as Super Awesome 60FPS Cyborg Ninja Raiden, they got him, no excuses. And whatever "issues" morons had usually boiled down to:
"He's has high heels"/"This has no Snake."
Jokes on them, they're missing out on a great spin-off to the series.

Buuuuuuut the hate DmC: Devil May Cry got I can understand. Ninja Theory was run by douchebags who treated the old fans like trash, ironically their douchebaggery transferred very well into their game's protagonist, gameplay, and shakespearian narrative.

Spoiler

Sorry, I had to...

 

[HoneyVision]

snip

You just said the bodies of the deceased are legally owned by their families (which I wasn't aware about), which still makes cannibalism undefendable because it would be without consent, unless the family AND the deceased (while still alive) gave express permission, then an argument supporting it could arise. Such a situation would be so damn few and far between, however. Bestiality again comes with consent issues. There is no way for animals to consent to humans, so it is seen as rape. However, in many cases that I've seen/heard of, it's the animal that ends up penetrating the human, so it could almost be considered the opposite. It generally falls under animal abuse at any rate, which is illegal. It's still something I need more time to think about, however.

The problem that arises here in these fields (and which didn't arise with fetishes) is the lack of consent. Or the lack of understood consent (can an animal truly consent to sex with a human? I'm not entirely sure). Consent is something that CAN be completely and utterly given in an incest relationship. It absolutely can.

Your first statement is making little sense. If someone asks to eat your finger off and you let them, that is consent. Done. And as I said, there are groups of people who practice this. I've read numerous articles about this practice in Time Magazine and the like. It's not as uncommon as people think.
If a deceased person (while still alive) makes no mention of their intentions on their body's treatment after their death, then their families have every right to use their property as they see fit. And don't for a second even think that it doesn't happen, because it does.
If you bend over and your dog voluntarily walks over and fucks you in the ass, then that's consent. The people who deem it as "animal abuse" are the same people who deem scat/piss fetishes and incest as illegal.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

I was under the impression you were talking about post-death cannibalism, or a murder case concerning cannibalism. If someone cut their finger off and gave it to someone to eat, well, as sick as it is, I can't say I'd have anything against it. If a family really has complete authority over a deceased persons body, then I guess it would fall under their requirement to give consent about necrophilia, though I would certainly believe the law would need a mention about it while the person was still alive. Though I'm unsure how that would work.

Regarding bestiality, it may seem like consent, but some would argue that the animal in question does not understand what they are doing, similar to a pre-pubescent child would not understand what they were doing if they gave an older person their "consent" to do things with them. This could be seen as taking advantage, such as if someone who was completely sober slept with someone who was staggeringly intoxicated with the knowledge that that person was not in their proper state of mind.

And I've seen no arguments concerning making criminal things such as scat and piss fetishes. I've seen plenty write them off as disgusting, and the people who practice them as "sick minded" (to which I again, disagree), but never a call for making them illegal.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Sensible recreational drug use.
I disagree with the knee-jerk 'drugs are bad mmkay' attitude some people take.

The right to free speech. Also, the right to smack someone abusing that right.
You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the right to be a complete bell-end.

My Queen and Country.
This does not however include the government, who are a bunch of jumped-up tossers who should not be in charge of a fucking nursery, let alone a whole bloody country. The Monarchy don't really do anything these days, but it's nice having them around. It will be a very sad day when Prince Philip goes, he's like that racist old granddad that you just can't stay mad at.

 

[HoneyVision]

snip

I was under the impression you were talking about post-death cannibalism, or a murder case concerning cannibalism. If someone cut their finger off and gave it to someone to eat, well, as sick as it is, I can't say I'd have anything against it. If a family really has complete authority over a deceased persons body, then I guess it would fall under their requirement to give consent about necrophilia, though I would certainly believe the law would need a mention about it while the person was still alive. Though I'm unsure how that would work.

Regarding bestiality, it may seem like consent, but some would argue that the animal in question does not understand what they are doing, similar to a pre-pubescent child would not understand what they were doing if they gave an older person their "consent" to do things with them. This could be seen as taking advantage, such as if someone who was completely sober slept with someone who was staggeringly intoxicated with the knowledge that that person was not in their proper state of mind.

And I've seen no arguments concerning making criminal things such as scat and piss fetishes. I've seen plenty write them off as disgusting, and the people who practice them as "sick minded" (to which I again, disagree), but never a call for making them illegal.

Yes, that last statement is true. But incest is still highly illegal. My point is, if you're gonna argue in support for one taboo practice, then you can easily find justifications for the rest. Give leeway for one and the rest will follow for sure. This is how many numerous sexual acts that have become legalized after centuries, even millenniums, of forbiddance. Anal sex is a good example. It's physiologically very risky and can contract HIV 10 times faster than regular sex. But put enough justifications (mutual consent, human rights, use of protection) and you can easily defend it.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'll always try to defend women's rights and feminism IRL, I think some sections of the Internet aren't worth the energy.

Can't stand feminism or feminists myself. I would certainly never defend it; if anything I think it's long outlived its usefulness and has now been twisted into a farce of what the movement originally stood for.

Freedom of sexuality, namely homosexuality and incest

Homoseuality and what? You can't be serious?

 

[HoneyVision]

Sensible recreational drug use.
I disagree with the knee-jerk 'drugs are bad mmkay' attitude some people take.

The right to free speech. Also, the right to smack someone abusing that right.
You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the right to be a complete bell-end.

My Queen and Country.
This does not however include the government, who are a bunch of jumped-up tossers who should not be in charge of a fucking nursery, let alone a whole bloody country. The Monarchy don't really do anything these days, but it's nice having them around. It will be a very sad day when Prince Philip goes, he's like that racist old granddad that you just can't stay mad at.

I've never understood the Monarchy hate either. I mean yeah they do shit all and do cost a fair sum of money, but for some reason people think that if they were dissolved somehow the country's suddenly going to save all this money. And I'd rather have someone sitting on a throne doing nothing than a bigger parliament (who will probably end up wasting that money anyway). I'm far from an expert on the subject but it just seems so extremely redundant to attempt to dissolve the Monarchy. Do anarchists actually believe that it will achieve much? (and that's not even a rhetorical question, I'm actually asking out of curiosity).

 

[HoneyVision]

I'll always try to defend women's rights and feminism IRL, I think some sections of the Internet aren't worth the energy.

Can't stand feminism or feminists myself. I would certainly never defend it; if anything I think it's long outlived its usefulness and has now been twisted into a farce of what the movement originally stood for.

Freedom of sexuality, namely homosexuality and incest

Homoseuality and what? You can't be serious?

Totally agree on the first notion. I would endlessly defend equal rights for both genders, but like most other institutions, feminism unfortunately has become a deformed version of its former self and what it really stood for. I get the same see-saw vibe from workers' unions. I dunno...just my view I guess.

 

[thiosk]

The glory of the god emperor (and the honor of my battle brothers)

Also,
cat ownership by males.

edit (I scroll up a bit and, woah at the people who will always defend incest and bestiality. Yikes. Im all for same-sex marriage, but stuff likes this make me wonder if the slippery slope arguments against it had more merit than i previously thought.)

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

Well there must always be a line. As I said before, when it comes to abuse and lack of consent, that is where the line must be forcefully drawn, which is why I believe that paedophilia will never be legal. To me, incest (provided it isn't forced or abusive) is a victimless venture that ultimately bothers no one but the participants directly involved, much like anal sex, homosexuality and a grand majority of fetishes and fantasies. I really can't see how that can be compared to the likes of rape, paedophilia and necrophilia (unless that insanely rare situation arises in which consent is given from everyone) which all DO have victims and a lack of consent, and can ruin lives (or at least significantly challenge them).

I hope I am making sense here.

Freedom of sexuality, namely homosexuality and incest

Homoseuality and what? You can't be serious?

I am very serious. I have made some posts on my views throughout the thread. Read some of them if you wish to better understand what I'm trying to get across.

 

[HoneyVision]

snip

Well there must always be a line. As I said before, when it comes to abuse and lack of consent, that is where the line must be forcefully drawn, which is why I believe that paedophilia will never be legal. To me, incest (provided it isn't forced or abusive) is a victimless venture that ultimately bothers no one but the participants directly involved, much like anal sex, homosexuality and a grand majority of fetishes and fantasies. I really can't see how that can be compared to the likes of rape, paedophilia and necrophilia (unless that insanely rare situation arises in which consent is given from everyone) which all DO have victims and a lack of consent, and can ruin lives (or at least significantly challenge them).

I hope I am making sense here.

Freedom of sexuality, namely homosexuality and incest

Homoseuality and what? You can't be serious?

I am very serious. I have made some posts on my views throughout the thread. Read some of them if you wish to better understand what I'm trying to get across.

Oh yeah for sure. There's no justification around pedophilia whatsoever because in any case it's always taking advantage of a minor, whether it's forced or not. Similar with rape. But many people would support necrophilia under the justification I mentioned before.
But I think in reality it's important to realize the obvious notion that just because all these are illegal or socially unacceptable, it doesn't mean people won't do them anyway. So really, the law is kinda irrelevant. What is relevant is ethics and all that.

 

[HoneyVision]

The glory of the god emperor (and the honor of my battle brothers)

Also,
cat ownership by males.

edit (I scroll up a bit and, woah at the people who will always defend incest and bestiality. Yikes. Im all for same-sex marriage, but stuff likes this make me wonder if the slippery slope arguments against it had more merit than i previously thought.)

Bless you for mentioning the cat thing. I love cats and kitties, they're the cutest animals ever. But I wish to stay single, and shallow people will be quick to judge that it's 'weird'.
And don't get me wrong, I wasn't defending incest or any of those other things. I was just pointing out how easy to question and defy many of society's taboos. The question I was posing is What or Who should determine what should stay forbidden and what shouldn't?

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

Necrophilia is perhaps something that is very open to debate. If the deceased gives permission beforehand, and the family afterwards, then it is consented and victimless. While it may be disgusting, even I will agree there, it may not be fairly criminalised. That is something I'll contemplate over in the future.

And yes, no matter if it's illegal, it will still be done. So much is true, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to fight for it. Once upon a time, homosexuality was illegal. It still occurred behind the scenes, but that isn't good enough. Now, in most countries, homosexuality is completely legal (if still misunderstood and oppressed). That's certainly preferable to having these people skulk in the shadows with the fear of punishment if they're found out. You see where I am going with this?

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

uhhhmm...

>2nd amendment (yeah i know i live in New Zealand but so what)
> Right to say WHATEVER YOU WANT WHENEVER YOU WANT
> Right to be a complete dick
> people who got on the wrong end of the ban hammer (its way too strict in my opinion)
> Gay rights
> the right to not like gays
and yeah...i just really hate censorship.

EDIT: EQUALITY for both genders...as in I should be allowed to be a misogynist just as much as they are allowed to be feminists...

 

[HoneyVision]

snip

Necrophilia is perhaps something that is very open to debate. If the deceased gives permission beforehand, and the family afterwards, then it is consented and victimless. While it may be disgusting, even I will agree there, it may not be fairly criminalised. That is something I'll contemplate over in the future.

And yes, no matter if it's illegal, it will still be done. So much is true, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to fight for it. Once upon a time, homosexuality was illegal. It still occurred behind the scenes, but that isn't good enough. Now, in most countries, homosexuality is completely legal (if still misunderstood and oppressed). That's certainly preferable to having these people skulk in the shadows with the fear of punishment if they're found out. You see where I am going with this?

Oh absolutely. But my point was that the law is irrelevant because in democratic nations it receives its power from the people. Get enough people wanting and justifying the practice of necrophilia or consented cannibalism and it will eventually happen. That's how women's rights and homosexuality were supported. It was a rocky journey but in the end they got there. Which is why I ask, what's the limit here? If enough people want something badly enough, theoretically what's stopping them?

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

snip

I guess personal morals is what's stopping them, and morals can be driven by a feeling of disgust. I disagree that that alone should be enough create laws, for simple fetishes could be criminalised by that logic, which is completely unfair by my reckoning.