It's actually "wrong" to have sex with animals due to disease. The consent argument against bestiality is the hammer of feminism being applied to something that isn't a nail.

Because people try to cram all sexual ethics in the framework of consent, in which every bad sex act must necessarily violate consent in some way.
https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/critique-of-just-love-part-one/
Consent is a crucial heuristic that should be taken seriously. But if you treat it as the single foundation from which all other things flow you get bad results.
The only people who try very rigid consent-based ethics outside sexuality are ancaps, I guess.

>>5255
I guess that explains the provenance of libertarian pedophiles.

>>5253
fuck I wish I was a vegetarian I'm just afraid to transition

Because liking them reveals to society that you are probably worth culling, as does being a vegetarian.

>>5253
This is the only defense horsefucking needs.

>>5261
I'm in.

>>5255
Great post.
>>5259
Why not wish you were less sensitive to this kind of imagery?

>>5268
Going vegetarian is easely attainable and long term.
I had no problem with dog gore and dog mutilation videos before for example but now that that I have a dog those are problematic just like normal people have problem with men shiting on babies.
There's also something sinister about the these biological replication machines get no chance whatsoever and get absolutely destroyed by a bigger non-biological automatisation.

Regarding this thread, it's ok to kill and eat animals because human survival depended on it just like it's ok and recommended for normies to dehumanize your enemies/outgroup.
Also people ascribe different levels of intelligence and congnition to animals.
It also depends on harm, like a dude fucking a mare somewhere in a barn won't matter but a dude barebacking a squirrel or a chicken is an event with a high chance of injuring the animal.

>>5261

"explicit, -eqg, -anthro, -humanized"
"human on pony action"

>>5261
This character would be hotter as an anime girl with the same hair and color palette.

I want to 'ride' the pony.

>>5274
We all do, ratanon.

>>5275
Please spoiler your porn.

Ban the porn posters. They're lowering the tone, somehow.

>>5278
>They're lowering the tone
I am not so sure about that. A porn dump would be out of place here, but individual pictures are probably as good and as bad as any other shitpost. It would be nice if our admin edited >>5274 and >>5275 to spoiler the images.

>>5279
based admin

>>5278
>>5279

In my defense, I spent some time picking out an image that had a featureless crotch that was merely questionable instead of explicit. There were a few nicer pictures of "fluttershy, bridle" that I would have preferred to use instead.

Thank you for not banning me desu.

>>5290
Maybe we can have a non-sticky thread with some rules like "spoiler your porn" or "clearn your room" ?

>>5292
8chan allows you do straight up create a rules page.

>>5292
Are there any rules we need here besides "spoiler your porn"?

>>5293
What would be a good place to link it? The board announcement?

>>5295
We can just start with that. I also posted porn one time that had to be spoilered. When you spend most of the time on imageboards you stop thinking about this.

>>5296
This really doesn't match my experience. It's easy to get a warning or even a 24-hour ban for posting an ambiguously NSFW picture on a blue board on 4chan.

>>5298
I don't actually visit 4chan anymore.I'm on of those elitist faggots that visit all those fucking small imageboards no one cares about.

>>5299
Are they more lax about porn? The /jp/verse, for instance, tends to be strict about board rules.

>>5300
I don't actually visit jp, but my previous statement is invalid since I just realised I visit tech here and lainchan has rules.
I don't know why I had that impression sorry.
I just see these types of rules broken all the time and I have the impression it is allowed.

What's wrong with porn now?

>>5303
I don't know, but there must be some reason traditional imageboard design mandates a seperation between sfw and nsfw. Do you really want to leap that fence? What horrors lurk on the other side? Chesterton is frowning at you.

My best guess is that porn is distracting. It lessens the capacity for intellectual activity. You don't jerk off where you work - gotta keep things compartmentalised. You can't have a good discussion about literature (or traditional games, or weapons, or papercraft, or comics and cartoons, or animals and nature, or, say, the art of rationality) if the temptation to succumb to your base impulses is all around.

Having rules also has the meta-benefit of creating a community through shared norms. We can delineate between good posters and the hated (((outgroup))) based on their behaviour. That said, I don't think rules beyond basic prohibition of informational/legal hazards are necessary here. We're few enough, obscure enough, and self-selected enough that we repel outsiders natually and all have enough in common to form a primitive community.

>>5304
Good post, but possibly wrong about papercraft, considering https://archived.moe/po/thread/564878/. Art and its discussion generally tend towards the NSFW, even if most often it is in the form of non-pornographic nudity.

>>5305
Are you the same guy that posted the rapekink subreddit here ? Asking for me.

>>5310
No. What would it mean if I were? I did post the ftmspunished link.

Eat meat. Don't torture plants.
https://wargsblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/the-ethics-of-meat/

>>5335
Rampant naturalistic fallacy and barely-rationalized status quo bias. Weaksauce.

>>5335
Eating meat made from plants tortures more plants than eating plants directly.