Anatoly Karlin @powerfultakes
Replying to @RichardHanania
I’m against legalizing bestiality because the animal consent problem hasn’t been solved, but probably actually will be quite soon thanks to Al (at least for the higher animals with complex languages). So why not wait a few more years. I don’t see disgust as a good reason. It was an evolutionary adaptation of the agricultural era against the spread of zoonotic illnesses, but technology will soon make that entirely irrelevant as well.
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s no animal I’m aware of that has a mental capacity beyond that of a child. We don’t think children are capable of giving consent - are we clearing the way to legalise paedophilia too, or are there animals with the mental capacity to provide informed consent that only lack the ability to communicate that consent?
Spoiler: It’s not a communication issue. If this technocratic psycho was more concerned with actually contemplating the morality of the question, and less focused on rearranging the insides of a parrot, his takes might be a little less monstrous.
Considering that US Republicans are OK with marrying and impregnating 12y olds, everything is possible, sadly.
…and that’s just what they openly advocate for - It sickens me to contemplate the bit they’re too uncomfortable to share.
If this technocratic psycho was more concerned with actually contemplating the morality of the question, and less focused on rearranging the insides of a parrot, his takes might be a little less monstrous.
It’s always funny realizing those who think they’re asking the tough questions that others aren’t smart enough to consider only ever talk about the same handful of topics: putting down minorities, advocating white supremacy, whining about anyone to the left of Pinochet and fucking animals/kids.
Like that’s 95% of the content on the Motte or "I"DW.
lgbt rights bad because Chesterton fence something something.
also
Consent standards:
(╯°o°）╯︵ ┻━┻
(ᕗ ͠° ਊ ͠° )ᕗ [dolphussy]
A bit of a tangent but I loathe the Chesterton’s fence argument. Not only does it shift the burden of proof to proving a negative (“show me this thing is not actually beneficial”) but it straight up demands you to make the conservative argument for them. Before you get rid of this bad thing, please demonstrate your understanding of why it’s good actually!
I find it’s a great way to figure out who to immediately stop listening to.
a cursed idea I just had: chesterton’s fence is the engine of sealioning
Kinda makes you wonder what they’d be capable of if they stopped spending all their time whining that they can’t say the thing they never fucking shut up about.
or "I"DW.
ah yes the interminable dork web
are they still running that theme?
(e: shower thought, had a better i)
Not after all of the “intellectuals” showed their asses on Twitter or in real life lol
Can only play that card as long as you don’t give away your hand by being a complete moron in public over and over again
I don’t want to endorse dolphin fucking or whatever but idk if we can necessarily very accurately map non human intelligence onto stages of human intelligence development. Like human children can idk stack blocks but they’re also very emotionally volatile and forgetful. Whales can’t stack blocks but they have a lot of emotional stability, good memories, and large stable social groups. How do you map between that? They’re not human.
In some ways non human animals appear very similar, especially other mammals and their social relationships and emotions. In other ways they appear very different. They’re their own thing and I think overly simplifying their minds by trying to work out some human age equivalent will just mislead us. It’s not like a pig that can do calculus would suddenly become a reasonable romantic partner haha.
It’s not like a pig that can do calculus would suddenly become a reasonable romantic partner haha.
as a pig that can do calculus, this explains why I’m still single
Who gave you a keyboard? Back to the truffle dig swine!
you went to college for calculus and the only job you could find was in law enforcement? damn guess biden’s economy really is shit /s
Agreed - and for that reason (particularly when balanced against the questionable benefit), I think it’s wise to err on the side of caution.
yes, that’s why I don’t eat them either
GIGACHAD
I don’t know, those blue whales look mighty submissive and breedable tho
Philosophical question: if brutally torturing and murdering billions of animals is fine, why do we draw the line at sex? I’m a vegetarian and have never ideated it, but the position is untenable.
HMMMMM I WONDER
shots are on me tonight, vegetarian reply guy with pretend opinions was my last square before blackout!
deleted by creator
“I can excuse bestiality, but I draw the line at animal cruelty”
I think your framing is flawed (I don’t think it’s an issue of consent so much as it’s an issue of creating animal suffering for personal benefit), but I broadly agree - I personally get past the hypocrisy because I have no interest in fucking animals, and push the suffering I cause by eating animal products to the back of my mind and pretending it’s not a thing. Responsibility is also meaningfully abstracted in the food example, making it far easier to pretend you’re not at fault compared to having a chicken impaled on your dick.
In a similar way, people consuming products made in sweatshops and people downloading CSA material are both exploiting children.
deleted by creator
i like how he sees the “consent problem” as just a communication thing. “if they could speak, they would be saying yes”
perhaps he’s not hoping for “animals able to enthusiastically consent” but is in fact hoping for “animals amenable to participating in the free market and the world’s oldest profession”
“I don’t see disgust as a good reason” shows he hasn’t considered reasons why a chihuahua would dissent
Looking forward to when the grizzly bear grunts in his direction and he has to decide which reaction is the clear non consent one.
Why do I feel like this guy knows exactly how far a Scooby snack gets you.
How the fuck will LLMs help you flirt with Mr Snuffle paws? What is going on in this guy’s head?
It’s fascinating seeing everyone project onto this things. Like a rorschach test of desires. You have the madcap industrialist slavering over firing all humans, the nerd rapturists, the sexbot enthusiasts, the doomsday preppers, and apparently dolphinfuckers now.
you just gave me a great idea for a comedy show.
Nerd makeover except gpt is fed an image of the contestant and asked how to make them over. Contestant then goes to a mingle or speed dating or whatever. Using guidance from the chatbot on what to say and do.
Can we bait tech cultists into this?
fry waving dollars dot jpeg
Idk maybe that Mr beast guy would set it up and finance it?
No One Is Safe: Nominative Determinism Strikes Again!
deleted by creator
Well first we feed it a big corpus of books written by dogs, and then we get a little shaggy with Scooby if you know what I mean.
Lol @ the Scooby snack line
I don’t think anyone else has said this, so I shall.
What in the actual fuck.
This is so hard because every one of his arguments is wrong, but the worst thing is that he’s arguing this at all.
of all the hills to die on, why would anyone pick this one lmao
Because they want to fuck animals?
These are the thoughts of the smartest people on Earth. If you don’t get it maybe you just aren’t that smart?
I don’t think the guy even understands consent tbh.
So why not wait a few more years
The world this posits is wild. First, you’ve got a person wanting to commit bestiality, but only wants it if it is legal, otherwise, why wait? Second, we’re going to both translate animal language (or neural activity if you wanna go steelman) into human language and back. And third, we’re gonna use that to successfully teach animals sex education (that, mind you, many countries already don’t have a great track record on teaching humans sex ed). Fourth, somehow these animals will be able to comprehend any of this in a meaningful way for the legal system to recognise their ability to consent (again, bad track record). And fifth the animals will actually consent.
higher animals
like, birds?
deleted by creator
I’ll be shocked when dude builds his translator, and every animal, rock, and inanimate object reliably says how much it wants to fuck him. Could the translator be wrong? No, he must be that desirable.
If there’s one thing I’ll definitely take a very conservative stance on, it’s that beastiality is absolutely disgusting and should not be legal, ever. If it’s something like Sonic or a fictional drawing of an anthro on e621, fine, but if it’s your pet dog Helga, you need serious help.
Why do I keep getting myself into these “It’s okay to fuck Sonic the Hedgehog if you must” chats
It’s okay brother, Sonic will take care of you
IDK, but he did get the princesses kiss in '06.
dear internet vegans trying to start fights online by comparing eating meat with raping animals: fuck off
dear insecure meat eaters who think anyone gives a fuck you don’t like vegans: see above
Gotta wonder if that’s in any way related to how so many of those assholes have a hate-on for furries
holy mental gymnastics to make furries sound normal
it’s almost 2024 and somehow you still hate furries enough to announce it to strangers on the internet
which is extremely largely operated and supported by furries
People: having fun, doing their thing, not harming anyone
Lemming: EWW FURRIES
Evolution is when all of the animal fuckers die from zoonotic diseases.
But soon they won’t because we’ll have something something TECH something something HEALTHCARE
Techlords are coming to rescue with animal sex dolls and bots.
deleted by creator
the only time they’d consider funding (actual) healthcare is when it affects them
death by single-celled dog up the urethra
...
Yeah, I replied to the wrong post like a moron
Knowing just a smidgeon about how the statistical parrots work, I wonder were they will get the dataset for the animal languages.
This reminds me, I read an article in Nature about teaching dogs to read. Now, this was a 19th century article in a 19th century Nature, so it described how the author had written “food” on a note and placed it on the food bowl and placed a blank note on an empty bowl and eventually gotten his dog to fetch the note that had “food” written on it. Alas, due to unforeseen circumstances, it was hard to expand into more advanced literature.
So where to get the dataset? Nevermind, Magical AI to the rescue!
It reminds me of the classic story of the guy who trained his mule to subsist without eating. He trained it by giving it less and less food every day,but just when it was about ready to go without food,the stupid animal died.
Science can be frustrating sometimes.
there is project to document as many whale noises as possible to build whale LLMs called Project CETI (get it like SETI but it’s for Cetaceans ahahahahaha like you put a C instead of an S so it’s like a double pun ahaha Cetaceans are whales btw haha)
That’s cool! Conversations will be depressing as fuck though.
“Hey whale how’s it going?”
“Umm weird, you can talk. Hey will you please stop killing us?”
“No can do whalearino, only a tiny handful of us think we shouldn’t kill other animals”
"oh… ok… Do you think you could stop throwing garbage in our home then? "
"hahaha Whaley old pal you crack me up "
"Sonar? "
“Not on the table old chum, now go dash yourself against that beach over there, I’ve got an ocean floor to map!”
deleted by creator
Call me pentadactyl cause I’m gonna flipp’er over
Thinking killing animals we don’t sustainably farm for food is bad is pretty uncontroversial
Thinking it’s bad: not controversial. Thinking something should actually be done about it: not that popular. Spending money / imposing costly regulation to prevent it: very unpopular.
it’s extremely controversial
hey chatgpt, how do I bit flip my dog translator?
looking at his dog what if the ai consents tho…
I keep rereading the phrase “why not wait a few more years.” haunting
the animal consent problem hasn’t been solved, but probably actually will be quite soon thanks to Al (at least for the higher animals with complex languages)
CW discussion of bestiality
So… there are animals with complex languages, which AI will help us understand, and we can then ask the animals if they are ok with us fucking them. (I’m not sure what animals these are. Dolphins? Whales? The great apes? The stereotypical victims of bestiality - barnyard animals raped by horny and/or lonely men - don’t seem to qualify to me)
This raises further disturbing questions. Assuming we can really understand these animals enough for them to give consent to sex, where does this put humans who are now seen as unable to (the mentally disabled, children, elderly people with dementia)? If it’s both ok to have sex with a pig because an AI told us it was ok, and slaughter that same pig for food, then surely it’s ok to have sex with a kid, because they’re at least accorded more rights than most animals, and we don’t need AI to communicate with them.
They either have not thought this through, or thought way too much about it.
You’re on the right track. It’s long been established that non human animals cannot consent to sex because of the power difference between them, even if the non human animals could communicate well.
“If animals can give consent, that means children don’t need too”
Tf kinda logic is that?
The point is, how do we know that “animals can give consent”? “If you have sex with me, I won’t kill and eat you” is like the epitome of power imbalance.
So let the Vegans fuck them, I don’t care about rationalising why people should fuck animals.
My issue is with your fallacy of suggesting seeking consent leads to ignoring consent elsewhere.
So let the Vegans fuck them
why was this necessary
My issue is with your fallacy
we don’t do that here. drop the debatelord shit
