The Gaming Den

PoliteNewb wrote:Let your own moral compass guide you there.

I would if I weren't a Psychopath. But you know. Oh well.

PoliteNewb wrote:

Orion wrote:Humans can consent to have sex, but they can't consent to be eaten killed for food.

Happy now?

I'm happy. That's a general law against suicide. Humans aren't given the right to directly kill themselves, although indirectly killing themselves (as in the case of in the course of your duty) is perfectly honorable. That's a general law passed by ... humans.

On the other hand, humans also have a lot of laws requiring how animals are killed and certain methods are not considered "humane."

So as long as we center the question on killing and not eating, the argument makes sense.

Mahlzeit.

Prak_Anima wrote:
Edit: Ok, I'm curious. Am I the only person who doesn't see a problem in werewolf on wolf sex? Garou can literally communicate with wolves. Wolves in WtA have a limited world view, but are actually no less intelligent.

Wolves in WtA are less intelligent. I think, you're mistaking them for lupus Garou, who have intelligence inserted artificially in their heads.

Anyway, no, I don't. Compared to, say, variety of ways of using mindrape to actually rape people and make them like it, that exist in RPGs, particularly White Wolf RPGs, this does not even register on my "this is disturbing" radar. Until discovering Frank's dogrape discussion fetish I haven't even given this more than passing thought, and apparently neither did any of the numerous rabid WtA bashers I've encountered on forums before (well, maybe this meme is recent, I haven't seriously checked White Wolf forums or rpg.net for many months, but I haven't seen it anywhere else).

EDIT: Failing my second save...

Frank, you entire argument is completely hypocritical. You have said, on this very forum, that using mojo to date-rape people is a-OK, and you have no problem on this front with Serial Rape and Sex Slavery: The RPG (aka Vampire). Either morally condemn every power that allows you to choose for other characters, whether they want to have sex with your character, ever, or admit, that the idea of sex with wolves is particularly disgusting to you by itself and that's that. You know, that you are within your rights to condemn it just on this basis, instead of cooking up bullshit supporting arguments, are you?

FatR wrote:Until discovering Frank's dogrape discussion fetish I haven't even given this more than passing thought, and apparently neither did any of the numerous rabid WtA bashers I've encountered on forums before (well, maybe this meme is recent, I haven't seriously checked White Wolf forums or rpg.net for many months, but I haven't seen it anywhere else).

I don't appreciate stupid well-poisoning like this in a feeble and sad way to distract people from a genuine problem. I think it's worse for discourse than actually saying that this shit is okay.

Fans go out of their way to plug up their ears and close their eyes. Or they do it accidentally. Haters aren't much better. Remember, a lot of the stupid shit has existed in D&D for decades without anyone really complaining about it until recently. Like randomized hit points or fighters automatically being inferior.

I'd say that Frank was going overboard too, but seriously, people in this thread are trying to justify this. I'd like to get this shit straightened out right now before moving on. We're the (the the) TGD. We're never afraid to face or discuss any problem in our games, no matter how difficult, intractable, or offensive it is. That's just how we roll, man.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: I'd say that Frank was going overboard too, but seriously, people in this thread are trying to justify this. I'd like to get this shit straightened out right now before moving on. We're the (the the) TGD. We're never afraid to face or discuss any problem in our games, no matter how difficult, intractable, or offensive it is. That's just how we roll, man.

People are trying to justify this, because IMO it's entirely justifiable. You are seriously starting your argument with a conclusion (werewolves fucking wolves is WRONG, man) and trying to argue backwards. Frank's entire argument is based on the premise that it is wrong to fuck dogs. Yes, if you accept that premise, OF COURSE this is abhorrent. But that premise is not self-evident, nor was it handed to anyone on stone tablets.

Again: most humans are fine with mutilating animals for our own convenience, killing and eating animals simply because they are delicious, and forcing animals to rape each other to improve the stock. Why the sudden disgust at sticking your member in one?

EDIT: you know what, what the hell, I'll go fully pro-dogfucker.

You are a female human being who likes sex with horses. Which is worse? Letting your prize stallion have sex with a mare who clearly doesn't want it, or allowing that same stallion to mount you when you (and he) clearly DO want it?

Because one of those is illegal and one isn't, but the why is very murky to me.

I incidentally agree with you--even though I'd never say this in polite company (or company period) animals don't even have rights insofar that 'violating' them doesn't unduly offend other humans. Hot man-on-dog fvcking isn't any worse than screwing a blow-up doll. And even if you believe so, I think it's dissonant with the idea of the average American fatass eating 50 pounds of chicken or whatever a year.

I was objecting to FatR trying to head off the thread by saying that it's disgusting or weird to talk about it. I'm also objecting to the people of the school of thought of 'animals have certain rights' while simultaneously holding the 'it's possible to have non-consensual sex with critters' and 'but WoD's man-on-dog action is NOT non-consensual sex!' premises.

Lago wrote:I was objecting to FatR trying to head off the thread by saying that it's disgusting or weird to talk about it.

FatR's arguments are bullshit in the extreme. Basically it comes in two parts: the first that somehow th fact that he never personally worked through the implications of dog fucking made it OK. That's an argument I dealt with earlier, but for extra measure: th fact that you personally didn't notice a problem doesn't mean it was not a problem. The second is simple ad hominem: that he considers some other position I have taken in another context to be pro-rape in RPGs, that my arguments against rape in RPGs somehow don't count. And like all actual ad hominem, it's a fallacy. And yes, that's really an ad hominem and not merely an insult.

The fact remains that even if I was such a hypocrite that I actually raped dogs in real life, it still wouldn't diminish the strength of whatever arguments I made against dog rape. It would make me a bad person but th arguments would still stand on their own. However, even within that context, the disagreement that FatR is having with me is that I do not regard using "magic" to convince people to give sexual consent to be sex without consent. Even if people are being convinced to do things that they later regret, the fact that they were consenting at the time makes it definitionally not rape. FatR disagrees, and claims that using magic to get someone to agree to something is coercive in the same manner as holding a gun to their head and making demands. But since magic does not exist, the question of whether being magically seductive is equivalent to being normally seductive or equivalent to physically overpowering someone is something that can't be answered. But it's telling that FatR is taking the position that there is even more rape in the World of Darkness to argue against my assertion that there is too much rape in the world of darkness.

Having sex with creatures of less intellect than an adult human is more wrong the more human-like those creatures are. I honestly don't even think rubbing your penis on a starfish or a tree counts as sex - that's just masturbation with a toy that happens to be consuming nutrients. Sexually predating on children is worse than molesting sheep, but bestiality is still a crime and rightly so. In World of Darkness, the Werewolves can talk to dogs and receive replies. The dogs aren't super smart or even human smart, but they can speak somewhat. That makes fucking them more wrong and not less. It makes sex with those dogs more similar to having sex with children, and thus more revolting than "normal" sex with domestic livestock.

-Username17

I have an overwhelming suspicion that the original poster just wanted to start another dogfucking thread.

TheFlatline wrote:I have an overwhelming suspicion that the original poster just wanted to start another dogfucking thread.

It was Prak, number one pro-dogfucking. Of course he started this thread just to argue about how dogfucking is okay.

PoliteNewb wrote:Frank's entire argument is based on the premise that it is wrong to fuck dogs. Yes, if you accept that premise, OF COURSE this is abhorrent. But that premise is not self-evident

Aaaaand I got a new sig quote

Frank, this isn't related to this thread, but do you believe in the gradualism principle when it comes to sapience for animals/robots/whatever or do you think that there's a cutoff line (you can put it anywhere, I just want to know your reason for it) in which anything below it doesn't get entitled to donkey dicks while everything above it experiences an explosion in rights?

Me, I personally believe the latter. I can't think of any dividing line of intelligence that will kick out rats but protect cats and dogs. Or a line where it's 'wrong' to kick a stray dog but it's 'okay' to artificially increase a cow's milk load even if it discomforts her for the rest of her life.

I can!

If you are OK with something being killed and eaten, you should be OK with someone having nonconsentual sex with it, breeding it to have bigger tits, etc.

Grek wrote: If you are OK with something being killed and eaten, you should be OK with someone having nonconsentual sex with it, breeding it to have bigger tits, etc.

Okay, so where do you draw the line to say which animals are okay to do this to? Keep in mind that not all animals are equally intelligent, that humans are animals, too, that it's possible to have humans less intelligent than the smartest of animals, and you need to have a standard that will accommodate any future creatures humanity comes into contact with/creates.

Well, like all other moral rules, it's something that society would decide. Each individual would decide if they approve or not based on if it squicks them out, if they personally like the animal in question, how badly they want to be able to kill/eat/fuck it and so forth, and society would take the aggregate of those oppinions and form a consensus on if it is OK to kill/rape/eat the animal in question.

FrankTrollman wrote: FatR's arguments are bullshit in the extreme.

You know what's bullshit in the extreme? This:

FrankTrollman wrote:Even if people are being convinced to do things that they later regret, the fact that they were consenting at the time makes it definitionally not rape.

Because the whole fucking point of mind-affecting powers is to force consent where the victim wouldn't have consented normally. Your argument is both invalid and disgusting. You are saying that rape is not rape if the victim had enjoyed it. By this logic, shit like third-level blood bond is not amoral in the least.

And by the same logic, werewolves fucking wolves is definitionally not rape. Because of the fact that wolves are assumed by the game to be consenting at the time. And because you just admitted that the way of obtaining consent absolutely does not matter, and the most vile way of doing so imaginable is all right. And no, there is no difference between a wolf and a human in this context, as in this context target human's mental faculties/free will are deliberately reduced, in one way or another, to the point, where he is not capable of making decisions for him/herself.

So, thanks for destroying your own consent-based argument and proving that your position is hypocritical. Not that said argument was valid or logical to begin with, because presence of superior mental faculties in being that a normal wolf would consider a perfectly acceptable sex partner in absence of said mental faculties, does not magically impact the wolf's evaluation of the said being or makes ensuing fucking in any way unfair or harmful to the wolf in question. Well, it makes said fucking so squicky to you, that you can't shut up about that, and I even accept your right to be squicked out by this. Your attempts to make your squick reaction some sort of objective truth fail, though.

FrankTrollman wrote:The fact remains that even if I was such a hypocrite that I actually raped dogs in real life, it still wouldn't diminish the strength of whatever arguments I made against dog rape.

And actually no, applying double standards to make your argument does diminish its strength. I.e., if non-consensual sex is bad, it doesn't matter if the victim lacks intellectual capacity to properly give consent because he/she is a wolf, or because you've turned his/her mind into mush with magic. If you aren't morally offended by presence of one of these things in the game (we know why dog rape is wrong in RL, thank you, and, accidentally, the main reasons aren't applicable to werewolves fucking wolves, as shown above), you have no logical grounds to be morally offended by other. Well, again, you're within your rights to be disgusted with this. And I'm within my rights to not care and consider stuff like having a ghoul in VtM way more disturbing.

Great. Now I have to worry if my Axe body spray is rape...

hi

Ever play Red Rocket?



(And no, for chrissakes, neither have I.)

FatR wrote:Because the whole fucking point of mind-affecting powers is to force consent where the victim wouldn't have consented normally.

The whole point of not looking like a giant lard ass is because it causes people to consent to sex when they otherwise wouldn't have.

You fail at life. Also, arguments.

Kaelik wrote:

FatR wrote:Because the whole fucking point of mind-affecting powers is to force consent where the victim wouldn't have consented normally.

The whole point of not looking like a giant lard ass is because it causes people to consent to sex when they otherwise wouldn't have.

Alcohol is good for that, too, I hear. Also intimidation and threats.

FatR wrote:Because the whole fucking point of mind-affecting powers is to force consent where the victim wouldn't have consented normally.

Consent doesn't count if you force it at gunpoint. Magic is pretty much the same deal.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

FatR wrote:Because the whole fucking point of mind-affecting powers is to force consent where the victim wouldn't have consented normally.

Consent doesn't count if you force it at gunpoint. Magic is pretty much the same deal.

Uh... But consent does count if you force it be being really charming and convincing them. This is pretty much explicitly Franks point. We can't know if Magic convinces them by "Force" or by "Persuasion" because it's fucking magic, and it doesn't really exist. Maybe Dominate Person doesn't turn them into your marionette, maybe it actually changes their mind like a good argument, how do you know?

Kaelik wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

FatR wrote:Because the whole fucking point of mind-affecting powers is to force consent where the victim wouldn't have consented normally.

Consent doesn't count if you force it at gunpoint. Magic is pretty much the same deal.

Uh... But consent does count if you force it be being really charming and convincing them. This is pretty much explicitly Franks point. We can't know if Magic convinces them by "Force" or by "Persuasion" because it's fucking magic, and it doesn't really exist. Maybe Dominate Person doesn't turn them into your marionette, maybe it actually changes their mind like a good argument, how do you know?

You're getting someone to consent under false pretenses, at the very least. It's also possible to seem more persuasive after you slip something in someone's drink.

Unless you're all 'I'm a sorcerer, I can magic you so that you want to sex it up with me', and they're like 'Really? Give it a shot'.

PoliteNewb wrote: You are a female human being who likes sex with horses. Which is worse? Letting your prize stallion have sex with a mare who clearly doesn't want it, or allowing that same stallion to mount you when you (and he) clearly DO want it?

Because one of those is illegal and one isn't, but the why is very murky to me.

Whoa, explain to me how she knows that the horse wants her to have sex with it?
Is she the horse whisperer? Can she read minds? If not, than you assuming way too much.