Things you will always defend.

[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.

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

Stuff that's common sense like human rights, animal rights etc.


-Fluttershy is best pony and MLP is a s good show

You are now my newest favorite person on the Escapist.
Fluttershy is best pony and you know it

OT: The things I would always defend? Hmmm, well the biggest one is the right for any person to say whatever they want, write whatever they want or believe whatever they want [Note: Not however, for a person to do whatever they want] even if I disagree/the majority of the world disagrees.
I am not a fan of censorship of any kind really and would only tolerate it in the most extreme of circumstances.

Other things:
-LGBT+ rights
-Equality among sexes and races
-Supporting the poor and homeless people
-Science, technology, Human advancement
-Proper education of the populace
-Probably some other things that I don't remember right now cuz sleepy.

But on these here forums I try my hardest to have a good time and not take anything seriously ever.

 

[Colour Scientist]

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.

Shock, horror.

Let me guess, you think that now most feminists want superiority over men or some bollox like that.
Please, enlighten me as to how you formed your opinion. What feminist works have you read or how many have you actually spoken to, rather than just listening to people talk about them?


Actually, dude, do you know what? I don't care why you think that because I'm sure I've heard the same, tired old story a million times on this very site. Lots of opinions on the feminist movement, very little knowledge of the feminist movement.

 

[theSteamSupported]

Faith and skepticism. Anything that drives a human being to explore and discover should not be frowned upon, no matter if it's motivated by religious belief, the will to disprove something or just pure curiosity. Thus, none of it shall ever have to be repressed.

Non-violence. No one should ever have to hurt another human being in order to feel satisfied or to achieve some dogmatic goal. That kind of stuff can only work in fiction.

Globalization. The interests of entire mankind should always come before the interests of a specific country. I don't give single fuck if Sweden is losing its national identity or being "invaded" by immigrants. No nation is an island, figuratively speaking.Om ni nu vill slippa en massa invandrare fraan Irak och Somalia, kanske ni ska arbeta foer att goera de laenderna till hoegfunktionerande demokratier.

Playing video games as a legitimate and redeeming hobby. I think this one needs no explanation.

Playing video games alone as a legitimate and redeeming hobby. See above. Especially EA has to learn this.

Sex positivism on a societal level, and sex positiv-/negativ-/neutralism on a personal level. Darken12 explained it better than i ever could.

The absence of anarchy and hierarchy. The chaos of our universe isn't something to be abused or constrained, it's all a massive amount of patterns, waiting to be unfolded and understood.

The enlightenment. I will always prefer it over romanticism, except in a few minor cases which are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

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.

Shock, horror.

Let me guess, you think that now most feminists want superiority over men or some bollox like that.
Please, enlighten me as to how you formed your opinion. What feminist works have you read or how many have you actually spoken to, rather than just listening to people talk about them?


Actually, dude, do you know what? I don't care why you think that because I'm sure I've heard the same, tired old story a million times on this very site. Lots of opinions on the feminist movement, very little knowledge of the feminist movement.

I'm going to take a wild guess that he has a poor view of feminism for the same reason that most others do. The vocal minority making the rest of the movement look bad. Hell, I'm affected by it and I support equality. When someone says feminist my first thought is of a million and one internet posts of 'PATRIACHY, MALE OPPRESSION, RAPE CULTURE' about really trivial shit. I know that's wrong and feminism is actually a good cause but that's the association that's been burned into my mind by idiots on the internet. To be honest, I think both Masculism and Feminism need to be rolled into one Equality movement, they confront different issues, yes, but they both want the same end goal.

[small]Hah, listen to me, pretending I understand any of this societal bullshit...[/small]

 

[KingKickass]

Freedom of speech; and not the bullshit "free" speech America has now, but true free speech where I can say what I want, when I want, and nobody can do a damn thing about it. The fact that we have the FCC shows how scared the government is of offending people and not being "politically correct" about certain issues. I get that people can get offended over certain topics or statements made by other people and they have a right to feel offense, but that doesn't mean I have to change what I'm saying or someone else has to change what their saying to pander to the offended party. You have a right to be able to be offended and I have a right to be the offender and speak my mind and opinions.

 

[Edguy]

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.

I wasn't correcting your wording, I was implying that 'acceptance' gives me a lot less positive associations than 'tolerance' (like blind ignorance and accepting of defeat).