this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
74 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15910 readers
317 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

https://nitter.net/PeterSinger/status/1722440246972018857

No, the art does not depict bestiality, don't worry.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LadyStalin@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you often hide like this, behind a phrase critique or emojis, or is this a special sort of backtracking

[–] Sephitard9001@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm asking you what the fuck you're talking about. You keep saying "these arguments are online, this parallel doesn't match, this is vulgar materialism and vulgar idealism" but you never offer an argument or explanation why. Just vaguely gesturing that you disagree with what's being said. From the very first response where I asked if it would be suddenly wrong to consume a steak only if it sexually gratified you, to which you simply said "This makes no sense". But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don't want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.

For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain

[–] LadyStalin@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For the love of god make a statement or take a position. Make a substantive claim or something. Or at least explain

No, a real position is just a ban, especially if it doesn't match vulgar ideology like the ones shown in these comments.

But it does make sense. It makes perfect sense. You know what question is being asked. Your feigning confusion because you don't want to answer but you were compelled to reply anyway because you took exception to the gist of my argument.

It literally doesn't make sense. The example you just randomly magikked into existence to mock didn't even reflect a real situation. Farmers do not get sexual gratification from their work, they slaughter and move on. Its a malformation of an argument designed to do nothing but bring moral scorn upon the subject.

I do not want to truly engage with an entity that has the opinion that people are one step from having sexual intercourse with animals because they eat thanksgiving turkey. Most people either don't care or don't think about where it comes from. Educate them there, don't make up some 'moral' nonsense to browbeat them over. This isn't class, this isn't marxism, this is veganism. An important matter but far less so than others of gender, sexual, and worker liberation.

[–] LadyStalin@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What does this even mean? You could just not give a reason, it'd look less problematic.

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Registered a few hours after CatradoraStalinism was banned

"Stalin" in username

Arguing in the same thread Catradora was arguing in, on the same side

sus