Can you see yourself doing any of these

[Jsmooth9876]

Strawberry

Ah damn you nasty then lol

[Jc8804]

- -U got any vid of U doing those things?

Me ,no .

1. Fcking a dead body .... i wouldnt put it past anyone ,including me .

2. Ive know 2 guys who have had their girl fck a guy for cash ,and girls who had a set price to make quick cash on the low ,like 1000$ for one time only .

3. I never had a dog lick my butt hole at all,but i know a girl in hs who let her dog lick peanut butter off her puzz.

4.i have been ran over by a car ,but the guy stopped . My buddy was with me and got the worst of it ,he ended up under the car holding onto the bumper . My buddy got like 12k from insurance , Me 3k



5. ive never set someone up ,but ive heard of someone i know being set up and i heard allegedly of the get back

[sceneboxing]

This thread came through, unlike 99% of the **** that gets posted here.

[iamboxing]

Here's the thing though...even if you turn yourself in and they sentence you to 50 years, you still ran over that guy. Nothing changes that, ever. Penance doesn't make everything okay.

I've thought about it now overnight and I'm probably not going to turn myself in. Given that this guy, supposedly, didn't know what he did at the time, so stopping to give aid wasn't an option.

I don't know what I do with the rest of my life but I'm not doing it in prison, not voluntarily.

and yes, maybe that makes me a bad guy but I don't think I'm in the minority on this, if people are being honest with themselves

The guilt doesn't come from the fact that you ran over the guy. It was an accident. The guilt comes from leaving the scene. And the point of penance is not to make everything okay or to redress an imbalance; it's to keep order in society and being held accountable for your actions. Executing someone for murder or giving them a life sentence doesn't bring back the victim, but acts as a deterrent. Otherwise, there'd be havoc.

[billeau2]

Who gets hurt by the peanut ******** thing?

Ethically? An animal cannot consent to such a relationship. This makes it inherently exploitive. We have as a species a long way to go recognizing the rights of other living things. But there are species that have shown they can act with humanity... show self sacrifice, love, the will to protect something they value more than simply offspring, etc. We owe dogs a social contract that says "you hitched your wagon with us, many moons ago when you left the wolf pack, we will evolve together." ***ually exploiting them is really not the act of an ethical individual.

[billeau2]

Here's the thing though...even if you turn yourself in and they sentence you to 50 years, you still ran over that guy. Nothing changes that, ever. Penance doesn't make everything okay.

I've thought about it now overnight and I'm probably not going to turn myself in. Given that this guy, supposedly, didn't know what he did at the time, so stopping to give aid wasn't an option.

I don't know what I do with the rest of my life but I'm not doing it in prison, not voluntarily.

and yes, maybe that makes me a bad guy but I don't think I'm in the minority on this, if people are being honest with themselves

Truly there is only one solution: Drive like you expect someone to maybe be in the road when conditions are bad... Drive defensively always!!

A great analogy: When you teach people real self protection, not how to fight in a ring... there are situations where someone grabs you... A chokehold from behind. This hold scares people, and rightly so, because someone who knows how to choke and gets a naked choke on you... thats a real problem. In martial arts you don't want a contest, you want to walk away alive... Your real defense against this hold is awareness and the minute you feel someone applying the lock to turn against their shoulder...immediately! You learn to emphasize doing it right the first time... not the struggle if you get caught in the hold!

The mongoose beats the snake with excellent timing and technique, there is no "what if the snake bites it?" Against someone who knows how to choke there is no struggle (im exxagerating, there are thngs to be done) and when driving, AVOID the possibility!!! by not letting it happen!

By the way this is why I hate insurance... Yeah I carry it but my insurance is making sure I don't do something ****** in the first case!

[Citizen Koba]

Ethically? An animal cannot consent to such a relationship. This makes it inherently exploitive. We have as a species a long way to go recognizing the rights of other living things. But there are species that have shown they can act with humanity... show self sacrifice, love, the will to protect something they value more than simply offspring, etc. We owe dogs a social contract that says "you hitched your wagon with us, many moons ago when you left the wolf pack, we will evolve together." ***ually exploiting them is really not the act of an ethical individual.

I'm a little reluctant to delve toooo deeply - if you'll forgive the pun - but in this case provided the dog wasn't coerced into licking the peanut butter (or any of the wide variety of other substances the Lounge denizens have imaginatively conjured up) but was allowed to choose whether or not it wanted to partake in a tasty snack from a slightly unusually shaped bowl I'm not sure where the exploitation comes in...

That is, surely it'd be a mutually beneficial relationship in that case, with the dog experiencing the nutty joy and the person experiencing... well, whatever they get out of it? Since the dog, to our knowledge has little to no interest in human mores or standards of behavior and it's fully reasonable in the doggy world to sniff or lick ********s I'm not seeing the problem from the dogs perspective. In the question of 'who is getting hurt' the question to be answer is not whether the human feels that they are being exploitative but whether the dog feels that it is being exploited, surely? Unless your answer would be that whilst the dog may not be suffering the human being might be coming to some type of spitritual harm... that they might become a lesser person because of such a deed... Is that kinda what you're getting at?.

I mean damn... my dog (RIP) didn't even need the peanut butter or indeed an invitation, he just came right on up and got his nose in there whilst me and the missus were getting down to business... ****, if anyone was left feeling violated it was probably me.

EDIT: Just to be clear I personally don't think it's a cool thing to do in any way shape or form, but it's more like I'm struggling to formulate exactly why.

[billeau2]

I'm a little reluctant to delve toooo deeply - if you'll forgive the pun - but in this case provided the dog wasn't coerced into licking the peanut butter (or any of the wide variety of other substances the Lounge denizens have imaginatively conjured up) but was allowed to choose whether or not it wanted to partake in a tasty snack from a slightly unusually shaped bowl I'm not sure where the exploitation comes in...

That is, surely it'd be a mutually beneficial relationship in that case, with the dog experiencing the nutty joy and the person experiencing... well, whatever they get out of it? Since the dog, to our knowledge has little to no interest in human mores or standards of behavior and it's fully reasonable in the doggy world to sniff or lick ********s I'm not seeing the problem from the dogs perspective.

I mean damn... my dog (RIP) didn't even need the peanut butter or indeed an invitation, he just came right on up and got his nose in there whilst me and the missus were getting down to business... ****, if anyone was left feeling violated it was probably me.

Its not comprable in violation in any way to coercing a kid, not at the level of indecency, but it is conceptually similar in structure of argument. When we use a dog as a means to an end, chauvanistically we assert (we are human!) it is not wrong because the dog does not know it is wrong. Why does that make it any less wrong? That certainly does not hold water when we apply it to children. The distinction is that we think we can exploit animals, and not children. Animals are beneath us, while children are our prodigy. Explotation imo is explotation. The dog doesn't have to know... basically it amounts to justifying abuse because it depends on whom we inflict it upon.

Now I recognize that "consent" and the social mores attached to it are amazingly complex... A man is supposed to be forceful and persistent, but... god forbid you misjudge a bit... And problems related to acquiring consent, their complexity, etc are not the point of the argument. The point is, we, as ***ual beings know that part of ***ual mores are some type of consent, whatever it may be. For that to remain consistent it should not vary because of species. Otherwise we get the truly pitiful look of the individual who screws the goat because its easy... no consent required.

[Citizen Koba]

Its not comprable in violation in any way to coercing a kid, not at the level of indecency, but it is conceptually similar in structure of argument. When we use a dog as a means to an end, chauvanistically we assert (we are human!) it is not wrong because the dog does not know it is wrong. Why does that make it any less wrong? That certainly does not hold water when we apply it to children. The distinction is that we think we can exploit animals, and not children. Animals are beneath us, while children are our prodigy. Explotation imo is explotation. The dog doesn't have to know... basically it amounts to justifying abuse because it depends on whom we inflict it upon.

Now I recognize that "consent" and the social mores attached to it are amazingly complex... A man is supposed to be forceful and persistent, but... god forbid you misjudge a bit... And problems related to acquiring consent, their complexity, etc are not the point of the argument. The point is, we, as ***ual beings know that part of ***ual mores are some type of consent, whatever it may be. For that to remain consistent it should not vary because of species. Otherwise we get the truly pitiful look of the individual who screws the goat because its easy... no consent required.

The comparison with child abuse was the first one I considered too but I'm not sure it stands scrutiny since it can quite clearly be demonstrated that norms of acceptable human interaction are being violated and that even if a child enters willingly into the abuse at the time - for instance in return for sweets or whatever, the social norms dictating the behaviour will become apparent to the child as the become older and gain greater understanding of the world. In short that at some later point they will understand they have been abused even if that isn't their subjective appraisal at the time.

In the case of a dog however we have no reason to consider that the dog will ever considered itself to have been harmed by the interaction, or least no more than we would any of the other interactions we have with a dog? How, for instance is giving a dog a peanut buttery treat more abusive than putting a collar round it's neck and confining it's freedom with a lead? In fact I'd argue that from the dogs perspective the latter is the far greater imposition.

See what I'm trying to wrap my head around? You're approaching this entirely from a human perspective, but for an offense to be committed it requires both an offender and a victim, the offense takes place at the point of the interaction between the pair and I would say is contingent on both parties satisfying a set of conditions, which I don't think are met in this case.

I understand what you're saying - this is clearly a reprehensible act in human terms but I'm still not seeing how the dog is harmed. The human probably ought to take a little time to reflect on their life choices and their values, but I'd say that'd be between themselves and their conscience or perhaps their creator if they are religiously inclined.

Ima think on this one some more though cos it obviously begs deeper questions on the reasons why we consider certain acts to be right or wrong.. For instance here, let's suppose it was a robotic dog, designed to mimic the behaviours of a real dog in every way... Would we still consider it an immoral act and if so why? If we have seen that the live dog is not the victim of mistreatment in any meaningful way then why would we consider it differently?

[billeau2]

The comparison with child abuse was the first one I considered too but I'm not sure it stands scrutiny since it can quite clearly be demonstrated that norms of acceptable human interaction are being violated and that even if a child enters willingly into the abuse at the time - for instance in return for sweets or whatever, the social norms dictating the behaviour will become apparent to the child as the become older and gain greater understanding of the world. In short that at some later point they will understand they have been abused even if that isn't their subjective appraisal at the time.

In the case of a dog however we have no reason to consider that the dog will ever considered itself to have been harmed by the interaction, or least no more than we would any of the other interactions we have with a dog? How, for instance is giving a dog a peanut buttery treat more abusive than putting a collar round it's neck and confining it's freedom with a lead? In fact I'd argue that from the dogs perspective the latter is the far greater imposition.

See what I'm trying to wrap my head around? You're approaching this entirely from a human perspective, but for an offense to be committed it requires both an offender and a victim, the offense takes place at the point of the interaction between the pair and I would say is contingent on both parties satisfying a set of conditions, which I don't think are met in this case.

I understand what you're saying - this is clearly a reprehensible act in human terms but I'm still not seeing how the dog is harmed. The human probably ought to take a little time to reflect on their life choices and their values, but I'd say that'd be between themselves and their conscience or perhaps their creator if they are religiously inclined.

Ima think on this one some more though cos it obviously begs deeper questions on the reasons why we consider certain acts to be right or wrong.. For instance here, let's suppose it was a robotic dog, designed to mimic the behaviours of a real dog in every way... Would we still consider it an immoral act and if so why? If we have seen that the live dog is not the victim of mistreatment in any meaningful way then why would we consider it differently?

First paragraph: first of all, if there are any interwoven points, will address, just like to read carefully paragraph by paragraph. To commit an Ethical Faux Pa, you seem to believe that one has to be conscious of being violated. So, the child gaining knowledge ultimately is the reason why it is wrong to violate the child. You do not believe that the principle itself holds merit? So for example, if we have a business deal, and I find a way to screw you out of half of what I owe you, but because I do so, you are stomping around furiously and step on a oil mine and make it rich... I say to you "Hey, no harm no foul big guy." Thats true?

Again, the same point applies... I would argue as I have, the dog's perspective is not necessarily important in a case like this. Although I will give an interesting caveat, but let me read through your points first...

Of course I am approaching this from a human perspective. The concept of victim here has to be sussed. Someone does not have to know they have been victimized to be a victim. What if a child was abused did not know it, but had certain behavoirs because of it? I understand the dog is not harmed immanently. I agree with you. I think WE are harmed lol.Our ethical standards, based on principles are harmed... It is similar to when in the Constitution of the United States, when the founders want inalienable rights for all individuals BUT ******... that is ethically inconsistent. I know there is a difference in outcomes: Slavery harms the slave, peanut butter smegging does not harm the dog.

Robotic Dog. Good question! Good argument in general... I would say no it is not harmfull. To me, it goes under the same guise as "thoughts" versus actions...similar structure... So, I (not me personally) am a great person who has horrid fantasies of catholic school teens. I think bad things when I see these teens, and I buy **** that shows adults recreating, acting like teenage catholic school girls... IMO similar to our robotic dog, or blow up dolls, etc. We have a right to our ideas, as long as they do not interfere with other living creatures rights to live in an ethically consistent world. Heres one for you!!! Lets say I develop a v i b r a t o r that functions by bacteria shifting in a mechanism which creates a charge for the machine as it is used... Do I owe the bacteria the same respect? lol. Hummmm?

Ok, so the caveat mentioned: lets say there is a dog somewhere that is in danger of being abandoned, except that an owner will care for it if the owner is allowed to use the dog in some perverted way... I would say, it is in the dog's best interest and have no problem with it.

I think practically speaking your much more realistic and correct... I mean children grow up with animals and may well do things that border on exploitive, and is there such a difference in feeling comfort at being licked a certain way, and arousal? I mean the line gets blurred. I just think ethics have to stand on principle, or they do not stand. Not absolutely... But as close as we can come.