If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   2 Girls + 1 Cup = 4 Years   (reason.com) divider line 416
    More: Asinine, victimless crimes, Naruto characters, sexual exploitation, U.S. Department of Justice  
•       •       •

46401 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2013 at 12:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



416 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-16 10:17:37 PM  
media.reason.com
Captain Caveman go to jail Now?
CAPTAIN CAAAVEMAN!
/sigh
 
2013-01-16 10:18:48 PM  
good
 
2013-01-16 10:38:46 PM  
The day America died.
 
2013-01-16 11:23:51 PM  
How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.
 
2013-01-16 11:29:07 PM  

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply?


Because the video was shot in a foreign country.
 
2013-01-16 11:36:06 PM  
Looks like Grumpy Tommy Lee Jones to me.
 
2013-01-17 12:12:18 AM  
The video referenced in the headline (it's NSFW and not worth the trauma) is another man's work. What's scary is that there are probably more people out there making similar films...
 
2013-01-17 12:12:23 AM  

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.


OSHA has a very large partial exemption for companies with less than 10 employees.  Also, OSHA can't even begin to investigate every company that exists in the US.
 
2013-01-17 12:18:40 AM  
Well that's shiatty.
 
2013-01-17 12:18:43 AM  
Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.
 
2013-01-17 12:18:50 AM  
You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.
 
2013-01-17 12:19:41 AM  

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.


This.
 
2013-01-17 12:19:47 AM  
Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.
 
2013-01-17 12:19:55 AM  
What a load of sh*t.
 
2013-01-17 12:20:36 AM  
Why the fark is the justice department wasting their time on this? is Reagan still president?
 
2013-01-17 12:22:06 AM  

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.


You shouldn't go to jail for poo taste.
 
2013-01-17 12:22:30 AM  
And the people who wrecked our economy continue to live large.
 
2013-01-17 12:22:38 AM  
media.reason.comwww.awardscircuit.com
 
2013-01-17 12:22:39 AM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.
 
2013-01-17 12:23:13 AM  
So who's gonna get things started with the pics?
 
2013-01-17 12:23:46 AM  
dammit, i just viewed a Reason article.
 
2013-01-17 12:24:12 AM  
In a related joke, the funniest line from last week's 30 Rock: (paraphrased because I can't remember the exact line)

"I don't want to be Harriet TubMAN... change it to Tubgirl!"
 
2013-01-17 12:24:25 AM  

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.


Truth. But if you're an artist and you piss off the wrong people, you will be taken down. Just ask Mike Diana.
 
2013-01-17 12:24:29 AM  
It looked like chocolate cream o' wheat to me.
 
2013-01-17 12:24:42 AM  

King Something: What a load of sh*t.

 
2013-01-17 12:25:36 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


Still defending Citizens United, I see.
 
2013-01-17 12:25:39 AM  
I hope they don't go after the guy that created meatspin. So many lulz in college were had when we set that website as the home page on an unlocked computer.
 
2013-01-17 12:25:42 AM  

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.


So much this. If freedom of speech protects Westboro and the KKK how does it not protect to this.

/intake and output seems like.
 
2013-01-17 12:26:23 AM  
What a crock.
 
2013-01-17 12:26:46 AM  

Bob Falfa: Looks like Grumpy Tommy Lee Jones to me.


That's redundant.

It could also be Edward James Olmos.
 
2013-01-17 12:27:00 AM  

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.


A lot of states amended their constitutions to prohibit that.
 
2013-01-17 12:27:33 AM  

adammpower: Why the fark is the justice department wasting their time on this? is Reagan still president?


Morality in Media is involved.

Morality in Media, Inc. (MIM) is an American, faith-based, non-profit organization that was established in New York in 1962. MIM seeks to raise awareness about the purported harms of pornography and other forms of obscenity on individuals, families and society. MIM also works through constitutional means to curb traffic in obscenity and uphold Judeo-Christian standards of decency in media. The president is Patrick A. Trueman, who is a registered federal lobbyist

Freedom Sucks...I mean, Porn Harms
 
2013-01-17 12:27:46 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


i16.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-17 12:27:56 AM  
"Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction." WTF is this bullshiat ?. two hung (sic) juries before they found 12 self-righteous prudes.
 
2013-01-17 12:29:03 AM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.
 
2013-01-17 12:29:10 AM  
 
2013-01-17 12:29:55 AM  

SevenizGud: And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.


Oh, come on. Kelo v. new london just expanded on previous rulings such as the Cabrini Green debacle. Kelo argued the wrong issue - the issue isn't whether the government can take your property, that's long been settled. It's whether they compensate you fairly. She should have argued that since the government was taking the land for the express purpose of rezoning it commercial and establishing commercial activities, they should pay her the commercial rate. Then, at least, she would have gotten paid for losing her land, instead of just losing it. Also, more on topic, this is obviously a travesty of justice. If he held women at gunpoint and forced them to commit these acts, then throw the book at him. But since he just paid women for doing things they volunteered to do, where's the crime? Don't women have the freedom to make really bad decisions for a paycheck just like men do?
 
2013-01-17 12:30:00 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


I get the feeling that by "publicly endorse", you mean a handful of corporate interests trying to buy elections under the guise of personhood.
 
2013-01-17 12:30:33 AM  
Kermit has a sad...

[kermitNOTfapping.img]
 
2013-01-17 12:30:55 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


re:

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.


The relentless moralizers won. They killed the USA. It's over. You are a card-carrying member of Al Aqaida.
 
2013-01-17 12:31:26 AM  
Dear Jurors,

Ever hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT?
 
2013-01-17 12:31:31 AM  
when asked for comment all the defendant had to say was, "Ski bi di bi di do bap do do do bam do ada bwi ba ba bada bo baba ba da bo bwi ba ba ba do "
 
2013-01-17 12:31:44 AM  

spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

 
2013-01-17 12:31:47 AM  
Jamie Gillis laughs from the beyond...
 
2013-01-17 12:32:48 AM  
Real poo or simulated poo?

It matters.
 
2013-01-17 12:33:06 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


your rambling - i don't even. get back on track sillypuss. Politics thread this is not.
 
2013-01-17 12:34:05 AM  

spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.


So you are also against skydiving, jogging, mountain climbing, driving cars, flying on airplanes, and taking showers? Did you know that people DIE doing all of those things? THEY MUST BE STOPPED NOW!!!11!
 
2013-01-17 12:34:06 AM  
Nice. I liked how they kept jury-shopping till they got one they liked.

Its funny, you are only allowed one chance to defend yourself, but you can be dragged into a courtroom over and over again. All the prosecutor needs is to win one game, and they have the series, but the defense needs to have a perfect record and win every game.
 
2013-01-17 12:34:29 AM  

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


No, fark your limits. I refuse to accept that answer.

I cannot state this more strongly. My government has no place in regulating speech. You have no place in regulating freedom.
 
2013-01-17 12:35:28 AM  

theMightyRegeya: Here's one for you folks who voted Republican because freedoms


The United States Department of Justice is run by President Obama & Democratic appointees and has been since 2009.
 
2013-01-17 12:35:51 AM  
Next we need to round up all the people who make hate speeches towards anyone rich.
 
2013-01-17 12:36:18 AM  

spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.


So the Jackass crew should be arrested? How about the producers of Cops? Skydiving videos? X-games participants? the NFL?

I'd rather take a log to the chest than get a concussion from the 350# linebacker.
 
2013-01-17 12:36:31 AM  

untaken_name: spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

So you are also against skydiving, jogging, mountain climbing, driving cars, flying on airplanes, and taking showers? Did you know that people DIE doing all of those things? THEY MUST BE STOPPED NOW!!!11!



Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?
 
2013-01-17 12:37:37 AM  

LemSkroob:
I'd rather take a log to the chest than get a concussion from the 350# linebacker.


if you do both, we could have an NFL commercial.
 
2013-01-17 12:37:42 AM  
As much as I am totally not into scat... I am all for this guy. Some people get their kicks in some disgusting ways.. but if no one is hurt and everyone is willing.. who am I to say no?

My guess is this will get overturned in appeals though, tried 3 times? and the DA is gonna have to try pretty hard to proove that the jurors were NOT simply getting revenge for being forced to watch his videos.
 
2013-01-17 12:38:30 AM  

LemSkroob: spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

So the Jackass crew should be arrested? How about the producers of Cops? Skydiving videos? X-games participants? the NFL?

I'd rather take a log to the chest than get a concussion from the 350# linebacker.


Jackass is a carefully orchestrated stunt show designed to look more dangerous than it really is. The NFL is going to encounter some major changes very soon in the wake of the finding from Junior Seau, bank on it.
 
2013-01-17 12:38:50 AM  
I'd like to see the celebrities coming out in support of this 'artist' and his works of 'art'.

Dude's a peddler. Looks like he got Max Hardcored and didn't even get to fark anyone.

And that 2 girls 1 Cup video is fake as fark - it's just the inbuilt revulsion to anything poopy that gives it the rep. The prosecutors should have had the jurors eat some of that poop ice cream in defence. Now, TUBGIRL on the other MrHands, well...
 
2013-01-17 12:42:03 AM  

JeffMD: As much as I am totally not into scat... I am all for this guy. Some people get their kicks in some disgusting ways.. but if no one is hurt and everyone is willing.. who am I to say no?

My guess is this will get overturned in appeals though, tried 3 times? and the DA is gonna have to try pretty hard to proove that the jurors were NOT simply getting revenge for being forced to watch his videos.


There's no DA he was tried by the Federal Government in Federal Court I.E. Obama's Justice(sic) Department
 
2013-01-17 12:42:43 AM  
hoty
 
2013-01-17 12:42:47 AM  

spman: Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?


Now you're moving the goalpost. I thought you were against any activity that presented the possibility of harm to the person undertaking it. If you don't even know what precautions there are, what makes you so sure they weren't taken? Be honest, you weren't thinking about "precautions" when you first made your statement. You were thinking that activities which you agree with are fine, even if they are dangerous to the participants, and activities you find repulsive shouldn't be allowed to exist, and you used the "danger" thing as a way to plausibly oppose the activities you don't like, but didn't consider how that same rationale would apply to activities you like.
 
2013-01-17 12:43:00 AM  
So, why is this in the "politics" tab?

Oh, they mentiond shiat, never mind.
 
2013-01-17 12:44:44 AM  

spman: untaken_name: spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

So you are also against skydiving, jogging, mountain climbing, driving cars, flying on airplanes, and taking showers? Did you know that people DIE doing all of those things? THEY MUST BE STOPPED NOW!!!11!


Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?


You can't be serious. Consenting adult behavior is seldom rational, but it should never be illegal. If you can't see why the awful writing of the Marquis de Sade should be available to the public, I don't know how to respond.
 
2013-01-17 12:44:50 AM  

borg: JeffMD: As much as I am totally not into scat... I am all for this guy. Some people get their kicks in some disgusting ways.. but if no one is hurt and everyone is willing.. who am I to say no?

My guess is this will get overturned in appeals though, tried 3 times? and the DA is gonna have to try pretty hard to proove that the jurors were NOT simply getting revenge for being forced to watch his videos.

There's no DA he was tried by the Federal Government in Federal Court I.E. Obama's Justice(sic) Department


I'd like to buy a vowel punctuation mark
 
2013-01-17 12:45:19 AM  
The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.
 
2013-01-17 12:45:37 AM  

tjfly: [media.reason.com image 275x206][www.awardscircuit.com image 661x480]


You forgot to add: upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-17 12:46:20 AM  
art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-01-17 12:46:43 AM  
Edward James Olmos really let himself go.
 
2013-01-17 12:47:51 AM  

casual disregard: spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

No, fark your limits. I refuse to accept that answer.

I cannot state this more strongly. My government has no place in regulating speech. You have no place in regulating freedom.


Well, that's a bit much. I'm pretty happy with jailing people who make kiddie porn and death threats.
 
2013-01-17 12:47:59 AM  

Pincy: Animals can't consent.


Neigh means neigh.
 
2013-01-17 12:48:50 AM  

Paris1127: The video referenced in the headline (it's NSFW and not worth the trauma) is another man's work. What's scary is that there are probably more people out there making similar films...


Then I recommend that you (or anyone else actually sickened by 2g1c) never go to any porn torrent site and search for "mfx".  Or so I'm told by a friend.

Some of the titles of their movies are hilarious, though.  Link (very very nsfw.  Not actual movies, just a list of dvds for sale)  My favorite is "Karla's Birthday Bukkake: Bring your Diarrhea!"
 
2013-01-17 12:48:59 AM  

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


So do you mind explaining how scat porn is actually  dangerous? Because, while there are reasons it is (and consent issues with bestiality), your post was 'We must regulate dangerous things--and I find this icky!'.

What the jury claims is bullshiat too--this isn't exploitation. It's paid work they happen to find icky. If you're going to ban something, at least pretend you have a concrete reason. I find it icky too, but I'm not calling to ban it. There's a reason for that.

/Once you ban things because they're icky, who's to say someone won't find  you icky someday?
 
2013-01-17 12:50:43 AM  

Pincy: The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.


Plants can't consent. Animals have brains.

I never put one in my cat, but I promise you we can communicate on some level. Likewise I can convince a deaf man without knowing ASL.

What the fark is wrong with you people??
 
2013-01-17 12:51:36 AM  

spman: Jackass is a carefully orchestrated stunt show designed to look more dangerous than it really is.


Most of that crew will be lucky if they can walk correctly by the time they are 50. The endless list of concussions, broken clavicles, burns, busted ribs, shattered hands, and torn urethras are well documented.


The NFL is going to encounter some major changes very soon in the wake of the finding from Junior Seau, bank on it.

there are billions of dollars a year that are generated out there by the NFL that like things just the way they are.
 
2013-01-17 12:51:52 AM  
Where the hell was Larry Flynt in all this?  I would have thought he would come to the rescue.
I don't care for Larry's objectification of women but his photo series on what is obscene was great.
Made me really start thinking.

did Ira there make Tub Girl?  GAAAAAA
 
2013-01-17 12:55:42 AM  
FTFA: Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction.

So double jeopardy protects you, triple jeopardy no so much.
 
2013-01-17 12:57:31 AM  

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


Oh look. A moralist that admittedly declares that he cannot fathom that other people are into things that he finds repugnant.

[FrankBurnsprayingjpeg]

/off to spunk on primroses
//sorry, it's just my thing
 
2013-01-17 12:57:54 AM  

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor shiaty taste.

FTFY
 
2013-01-17 12:58:11 AM  
What the hedline is referencing is one of the most disgusting thing I've ever seen, and I truly believe I should have to go to jail for seeing it.

/proud sheeple
 
2013-01-17 12:58:58 AM  

Plant Rights Activist: when asked for comment all the defendant had to say was, "Ski bi di bi di do bap do do do bam do ada bwi ba ba bada bo baba ba da bo bwi ba ba ba do "


ic.pics.livejournal.com

Approves
 
2013-01-17 12:59:49 AM  

Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.


media.skateboard.com.au
 
2013-01-17 01:00:37 AM  
media.reason.com
www.metal-archives.com
 
2013-01-17 01:01:19 AM  

spman: I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend.


i258.photobucket.com

The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake.

Does CNN do a lot of reports about the STD infection rates of South American fetish porn skanks?
 
2013-01-17 01:02:47 AM  

Pincy: Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.


He might very well like that.
 
2013-01-17 01:02:53 AM  

dookdookdook: Does CNN do a lot of reports about the STD infection rates of South American fetish porn skanks?


Why yes...yes they do.
 
2013-01-17 01:03:12 AM  

untaken_name: spman: Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?

Now you're moving the goalpost. I thought you were against any activity that presented the possibility of harm to the person undertaking it. If you don't even know what precautions there are, what makes you so sure they weren't taken? Be honest, you weren't thinking about "precautions" when you first made your statement. You were thinking that activities which you agree with are fine, even if they are dangerous to the participants, and activities you find repulsive shouldn't be allowed to exist, and you used the "danger" thing as a way to plausibly oppose the activities you don't like, but didn't consider how that same rationale would apply to activities you like.


I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.

Do you believe that if a man is so desperate to provide for his family, and finds someone willing to pay them enough to last the rest of their lives, and all the man has to do is shoot himself on camera? It doesn't matter if he dies or not, just shoot himself on camera, not in the arm or in the foot, maybe in the gut or the chest where you reasonably stand a chance of hitting some vital organs. Should this be legal?
 
2013-01-17 01:03:23 AM  
Yet no one was forced to participate in making these movies

It was smart of him to get those animals to sign waivers.
 
2013-01-17 01:03:31 AM  

NewportBarGuy: The day America died.


Animals dude.... animals.
 
2013-01-17 01:03:46 AM  

spman: Yes, but we take precautions when engaging in those activities in order to make them safer. What kind of precautions are there to prevent a person to get horribly sick and dying after eating human waste, or bleeding to death after being farked by a horse?


Well for one, most of those scat videos are fake, they're using something that resembles shiat. Secondly, as gross as it may seem, there are people who are into these kinds of things. Some women like being shiat on, others like farking dogs/horses. There's women who like being fisted, a horse cock isn't any bigger than a human arm, yet I've seen guys elbow deep into some sluts twat with that. None of it's my cup of tea, but hey, to each their own.
 
2013-01-17 01:05:18 AM  
no one was forced to watch them. Except for the jurors, who took their revenge last April by finding him guilty on five counts of producing and distributing obscenity

So the moral of this story is: If you are being tried for obscenity, make sure your lawyer uses his peremptories to get all the old ladies and fundamentalists OFF THE JURY. Or this could be you.
 
2013-01-17 01:07:17 AM  
FTA "he advertised and sold obscene videos"

People buy porn online?

/until they clearly define obscene, rather than "community standards", he should be free to take money from weirdos all he wants.
 
2013-01-17 01:07:26 AM  
a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals

I'm ok with bestiality being illegal.
 
2013-01-17 01:08:28 AM  

dookdookdook: Does CNN do a lot of reports about the STD infection rates of South American fetish porn skanks?


not unless someone tweets it.
 
2013-01-17 01:08:30 AM  

dookdookdook: My favorite is "Karla's Birthday Bukkake: Bring your Diarrhea!"


www.cavemancircus.com

/didn't porn titles use to be at least *slightly* funny and/or arousing?
 
2013-01-17 01:09:39 AM  

RatMaster999: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

[media.skateboard.com.au image 374x576]


guffaw!
 
2013-01-17 01:10:35 AM  

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.


Agreed. Apparently a fair number of jurors also felt that way--it took three trials to convict him.

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.


Yeah, that's my understanding--the extreme stuff is faked. The girls really do take a dump on camera but beyond that it's camera games and replacing it with fake stuff.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

Some country over in Europe just clamped down on bestiality as they were becoming a tourist destination for it as it was legal there. Therefore, obviously, some people choose to do it.

LemSkroob: Nice. I liked how they kept jury-shopping till they got one they liked.

Its funny, you are only allowed one chance to defend yourself, but you can be dragged into a courtroom over and over again. All the prosecutor needs is to win one game, and they have the series, but the defense needs to have a perfect record and win every game.


No, the prosecutor only gets one shot (although you can face both state and federal charges--they're different crimes), taking three tries would mean that two attempts resulted in trials that couldn't complete--presumably hung juries. Once you are declared innocent that's it, they can't try you again no matter what. (Something that I actually disagree with a bit--I would say that if you are later convicted of tampering with your trial the not guilty becomes a mistrial instead and they can try you again.)
 
2013-01-17 01:10:49 AM  
Jesus fought and died on the cross, fighting the British so that me and my lady can drink some George Dickle and prepare for some procreatin' with some wholesome, old fashioned shiat sex vidoes.
 
2013-01-17 01:11:24 AM  

log_jammin: a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals

I'm ok with bestiality being illegal sharia law.


/fix'd
 
2013-01-17 01:11:47 AM  

ReapTheChaos: yet I've seen guys elbow deep into some sluts twat


Yikes man. But I'm sure you are respectful to all the women in your life.
 
2013-01-17 01:12:28 AM  
Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction.

Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?
 
2013-01-17 01:14:15 AM  

spman: I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.

Do you believe that if a man is so desperate to provide for his family, and finds someone willing to pay them enough to last the rest of their lives, and all the man has to do is shoot himself on camera? It doesn't matter if he dies or not, just shoot himself on camera, not in the arm or in the foot, maybe in the gut or the chest where you reasonably stand a chance of hitting some vital organs. Should this be legal?


In either case - how does that action hurt you, me or anyone else?  People do stupid shiat all the time - that doesn't mean it requires a law on the books.
 
2013-01-17 01:15:20 AM  

Bondith: Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?


Mistrials for one allow charges to be re-filed
 
2013-01-17 01:15:45 AM  
I hope the jurors don't ever see Hot Kinky Jo. I've seen a few of her videos and am still trying to figure out how she does it.
 
2013-01-17 01:16:00 AM  

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.


...because the actors were not using REAL bodily waste, dumbass.
 
2013-01-17 01:16:52 AM  
If there's music/talk on the radio I don't like, I don't tune in.
If there's a show or topic on tv that I don't like, I change the channel.
If I have a dvd in front of me of something I might find offensive, I don't play it.
Websites that contain topics I might find offensive, I don't type them in.
If someone is discussing something with me I find offensive, I change the subject or walk away.

fark that jury.
/Oh and fark that jury.
 
2013-01-17 01:17:18 AM  

Bondith: Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction.

Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?


Not if the first trials ended in hung juries or they found something new to charge him with.

/it will be thrown out on appeal
 
2013-01-17 01:17:25 AM  
Hey, I agree with the sentiment but the shait jokes are getting a little bit much. I mean, sure, Reason's a terrible website and all but... oh, I see the article involves poop. Carry on.
 
2013-01-17 01:18:55 AM  

casual disregard: sharia law.


cause the two are exactly the same.
 
2013-01-17 01:19:17 AM  

borg: theMightyRegeya: Here's one for you folks who voted Republican because freedoms

The United States Department of Justice is run by President Obama & Democratic appointees and has been since 2009.


Give it up. They're still blaming bush for a lot of stuff; no way has Obama done enough in 4 years to warrant anyone questioning him.

I'm serious, he hasn't done shiat.
 
2013-01-17 01:21:39 AM  

spman: I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely.


So is auto-erotic asphyxiation. So is visiting CiCi's Pizza. So is having sexual intercourse with a stranger. These are all things which are unsafe, even though there are certain precautions available that could increase your chances of surviving them. They still can't be "done safely". What is your stance on these three activities? Should they be prohibited by law?

spman: If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick,


Johnny Knoxville rolled down a hill inside a filled porta-potty. He inadvertently ate some. He's still alive.

spman: Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.


Now you're biasing your requirements. I'm not going to voluntarily eat human waste under any circumstances, not even to win an internet argument.

spman: Do you believe that if a man is so desperate to provide for his family, and finds someone willing to pay them enough to last the rest of their lives, and all the man has to do is shoot himself on camera? It doesn't matter if he dies or not, just shoot himself on camera, not in the arm or in the foot, maybe in the gut or the chest where you reasonably stand a chance of hitting some vital organs. Should this be legal?


To answer this question, I'll ask you one: Do you believe that your body is your property, to do with as you decide, or is it the property of some other entity, such as some form of government or "society"? In case you don't want to consider that question, then yes, I believe that activity should be perfectly legal, and I believe that even if perfectly legal, it is extremely unlikely to ever happen. Similarly, I believe prostitution should be legal, and so should playing in the NFL (which is extremely tough on the body).
 
2013-01-17 01:22:05 AM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: And the people who wrecked our economy continue to live large.


Aaaaaand.... I'm done.
 
2013-01-17 01:22:28 AM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: ReapTheChaos: yet I've seen guys elbow deep into some sluts twat delicate flower

Yikes man. But I'm sure you are respectful to all the women in your life.


Fixed. Happy?!
 
2013-01-17 01:23:19 AM  
media.reason.com3.bp.blogspot.com

Oh how the Commanders of the Galactica have fallen...
 
2013-01-17 01:24:45 AM  

Oznog: [media.reason.com image 275x206][3.bp.blogspot.com image 339x500]

Oh how the Commanders of the Galactica have fallen...


sometime you have to roll the hard dicks
 
2013-01-17 01:25:07 AM  

zekeburger: Hot Kinky Jo


Do not Google Hot Kinky Jo.

Don't do it.
 
2013-01-17 01:25:38 AM  
Jesus, this is piss on the constitution month or something?
 
2013-01-17 01:26:11 AM  

MrTuffPaws: Jesus, this is piss on the constitution month or something?


Where have you been for the past 50 years?
 
2013-01-17 01:26:33 AM  

HotWingAgenda: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: ReapTheChaos: yet I've seen guys elbow deep into some sluts twat delicate flower

Yikes man. But I'm sure you are respectful to all the women in your life.

Fixed. Happy?!


No no no, you got me all wrong, I'm trying to make sure that Fark remains a safe place for misogyny.
 
2013-01-17 01:28:16 AM  

casual disregard: Pincy: The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.

Plants can't consent. Animals have brains.

I never put one in my cat, but I promise you we can communicate on some level. Likewise I can convince a deaf man without knowing ASL.

What the fark is wrong with you people??


A cat is fine too. The tough part is proving it gave consent
 
2013-01-17 01:28:34 AM  

log_jammin: casual disregard: sharia law.

cause the two are exactly the same.


Yes? Find me a Muslim country where documenting the consumption of human feces is not illegal.

I'm not extolling the virtues of documenting the consumption of human feces.In fact I find the act intolerably abhorrent. I just can't stand for the idea of illegal speech. I take the side of Voltaire: We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. Because fark tyranny and fark control.
 
2013-01-17 01:29:34 AM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.
 
2013-01-17 01:32:06 AM  

Fade2black: borg: theMightyRegeya: Here's one for you folks who voted Republican because freedoms

The United States Department of Justice is run by President Obama & Democratic appointees and has been since 2009.

Give it up. They're still blaming bush for a lot of stuff; no way has Obama done enough in 4 years to warrant anyone questioning him.

I'm serious, he hasn't done shiat.


So...I take it you two actually think Obama fired all of the Bush era Regent 'I majored in Jesus' University justice department hires? Man, that must be rough for them. 4 years of 'school' to only get to work for 4 years when usually it's all but impossible to lose a government job short of snorting coke off a dead baby. All that planning, and all those speeches about 'working from the inside to return this once great nation to it's Christian roots' gone to waste.

/idiots.
 
2013-01-17 01:33:46 AM  

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.


farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.
 
2013-01-17 01:34:18 AM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.


I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.
 
2013-01-17 01:36:01 AM  
i'm sure it's been said but this really left a bad taste in my mouth
 
2013-01-17 01:36:23 AM  

casual disregard: I take the side of Voltaire: We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. Because fark tyranny and fark control.


That was actually a typo. He meant to write, We have a natural right to make use of our penis as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. Voltaire was railing against the misanthropic regime of cunnilingus, and the threat of STDs.
 
2013-01-17 01:37:10 AM  

Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.


Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.
 
2013-01-17 01:40:33 AM  

Mock26: Dear Jurors,

Ever hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT?


I'm pretty sure they have. And they doubtless got a schooling in the current jurisprudence regarding obscenity regarding community standards. That jurisprudence badly needs to be revisited to account for the internet. But I can hardly fault the jury for not resetting the standard.

Unfortunately for both the prosecutors and those who would like to see the current precedents revisited the jury also heard testimony that the defendant kept his actors drugged up on coke. That has nothing to do with whether this was obscene under the law or whether anything should be obscene but is exactly the kind of thing that gets juries riled up and willing to convict someone of whatever is available to them. This will be overturned on those narrow grounds.
 
2013-01-17 01:42:24 AM  
Why isn't jury shopping illegal?
 
2013-01-17 01:43:19 AM  
Meh. Everyone knows swap.avi was better.
 
2013-01-17 01:44:01 AM  

casual disregard: Yes? Find me a Muslim country where documenting the consumption of human feces is not illegal.


I said nothing about documenting the consumption of human feces. I said "I'm ok with bestiality being illegal."

Your attempt to claim that's the same as supporting sharia law is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
 
2013-01-17 01:44:15 AM  

James F. Campbell: Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

Still defending Citizens United, I see.


Nah, just using it to identify idiots and people hostile to speech. It's as close to a perfect test as can be imagined.
 
2013-01-17 01:45:37 AM  

Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.


Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way
 
2013-01-17 01:46:53 AM  
media.reason.comwww.booklounge.ca

He really fell on hard times after the Montreal Screwjob.
 
2013-01-17 01:46:54 AM  

log_jammin: casual disregard: Yes? Find me a Muslim country where documenting the consumption of human feces is not illegal.

I said nothing about documenting the consumption of human feces. I said "I'm ok with bestiality being illegal."

Your attempt to claim that's the same as supporting sharia law is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.


I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.
 
2013-01-17 01:46:59 AM  

LemSkroob: Nice. I liked how they kept jury-shopping till they got one they liked.

Its funny, you are only allowed one chance to defend yourself, but you can be dragged into a courtroom over and over again. All the prosecutor needs is to win one game, and they have the series, but the defense needs to have a perfect record and win every game.


Of course. That's the "guilty until proven innocent" standard, intended to apply emotional judgment instead of rational judgment. Used in crimes that aren't actually illegal, any sexual accusations whatsoever, fights in which the "wrong" person wins, and anything else that warrants a trial by media because the law isn't bowing to popular demand.
 
2013-01-17 01:48:02 AM  

casual disregard: EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.


Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.
 
2013-01-17 01:48:51 AM  
s3.amazonaws.coma57.foxnews.com

Two Adamas, one sandblaster.
 
2013-01-17 01:48:54 AM  

dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way


Obviously. More of a cat person, right?

/sorry
 
2013-01-17 01:49:07 AM  

casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.


*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.
 
2013-01-17 01:49:32 AM  

dababler: Why isn't jury shopping illegal?


Heh. I'll give the government this much - they weren't jury shopping. This case has been as weird as the films the guy sold. The first mistrial came because the judge was found to have funny YouTube videos on his work PC, one of which had a donkey with a hard-on chasing a guy with his pants down, which video was inaccurately described at the time as beastiality. That made for some decent Fark threads back in the day.
 
2013-01-17 01:50:38 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: Nah, just using it to identify idiots and people hostile to speech. It's as close to a perfect test as can be imagined.


Ah, I see. You're one of those idiots who only understands negative liberty and not positive liberty. Idiot.

/Idiot.
 
2013-01-17 01:50:47 AM  

casual disregard: EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.


You know, the more I read and re-read your reply, the more interesting you become. You're a good man, and I'm glad to know there are folks like you in the world. Why you and I are on fark.com - now that is the real mystery.
 
2013-01-17 01:50:55 AM  
What a bunch of shiat.
 
2013-01-17 01:51:04 AM  
Ah, sorry Oznog, I feel like a shiat, sorry.
 
2013-01-17 01:51:13 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: The first mistrial came because the judge was found to have funny YouTube videos on his work PC, one of which had a donkey with a hard-on chasing a guy with his pants down, which video was inaccurately described at the time as beastiality.


Oh! I remember that!
 
2013-01-17 01:53:01 AM  

Pincy: Animals can't consent.


Only if receiving.
 
2013-01-17 01:53:57 AM  

log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.


If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.


How would you define freedom?
 
2013-01-17 01:54:23 AM  

dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way


The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.
 
2013-01-17 01:55:17 AM  

ProfessorOhki: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

Obviously. More of a cat person, right?

/sorry


Snicker...

I guess i kinda walked into that one..

I'm just really into alot of kinky erotica, and some of the sites have some pretty crazy stuff.

/there's alot of things i'll read about, and maybe get turned on reading them, but wouldn't actually do.
//kinda like the thrill of killing on video games not actually making people kill for real
 
2013-01-17 01:55:33 AM  

spman: I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. .


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-17 01:55:41 AM  

casual disregard: As it is, you despise your fellow man.


that's it. I despise my fellow man and I support sharia law.
 
2013-01-17 01:57:55 AM  

casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?


As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."
 
2013-01-17 01:58:18 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


Freedom to make stupid decisions is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of making said stupid decisions. So cry harder.
 
2013-01-17 02:00:16 AM  

log_jammin: casual disregard: As it is, you despise your fellow man.

that's it. I despise my fellow man and I support sharia law.


At least you admit it. Most will not.

I feel like I'm on the razor's edge of converting you. Please visit our fake church and worship our imaginary friend. Our brownies are exceptional.
 
2013-01-17 02:02:04 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

Freedom to make stupid decisions is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of making said stupid decisions. So cry harder.


I think that you might have just stated something important. Please expand on this thought.
 
2013-01-17 02:03:13 AM  

Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.


I question the use of the word abuse in cases where the participant is willing and happy to cooperate.

Should male animals be prevented from having sex because they are incapable of saying hey, i wanna do this, when it's quite obvious they DO indeed want to do it? If that's the case, you might as well just put chastity belts on females of all species, and castrate all males at birth because obviously they're not capable of informed consent because they can't tell us in human language that they want to fark.

We're ALL animals, we're ALL meant to fark, and sometimes interspecies sex happens in the quadruped world all on its own without anyone to worry about how immoral it is.
 
2013-01-17 02:03:43 AM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."


It is strange to me how you can be both wrong and right.

You are you and I am me. You cannot touch me, and I cannot touch you. Your freedom is most expansible, but it cannot expand to consume my freedom. Do whatever you want, just don't bother me.
 
2013-01-17 02:03:51 AM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."


Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.
 
2013-01-17 02:04:29 AM  

casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?


another word for nothing left to lose?
 
2013-01-17 02:05:44 AM  

James F. Campbell: Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.


Your use of charged words and naked assertions is both ineffective and transparent.
 
2013-01-17 02:06:18 AM  
If he distributed videos of women having sex with animals why did they even have to prosecute under an obscenity charge, as production and distribution of bestiality films is illegal, right?

/IANAL
 
2013-01-17 02:06:47 AM  

Omahawg: casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

another word for nothing left to lose?


You win the thread.
 
2013-01-17 02:07:43 AM  

Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.


True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.
 
2013-01-17 02:08:58 AM  

dopekitty74: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

I question the use of the word abuse in cases where the participant is willing and happy to cooperate.

Should male animals be prevented from having sex because they are incapable of saying hey, i wanna do this, when it's quite obvious they DO indeed want to do it? If that's the case, you might as well just put chastity belts on females of all species, and castrate all males at birth because obviously they're not capable of informed consent because they can't tell us in human language that they want to fark.

We're ALL animals, we're ALL meant to fark, and sometimes interspecies sex happens in the quadruped world all on its own without anyone to worry about how immoral it is.


Much of animal on animal action in nature is rape, but we are capable of being above that.
 
2013-01-17 02:09:08 AM  

Omahawg: casual disregard: log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

another word for nothing left to lose?


Eagles: "Just some people talkin". Nuff said.
 
2013-01-17 02:11:49 AM  

James F. Campbell: EVERYBODY PANIC: As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.


Dear Mr. Campbell, you may be right. Please offer a better definition. I'm open about this. Tonight may just get interesting after all.
 
2013-01-17 02:17:53 AM  
No kids or animals I'm okay with.

Trying to stop the industry that is shiat-vid is too dumb for words.

Some Morality Lobbying group getting the government to prosecute this loser three times in order to garner a conviction is a little creepy as well.
 
2013-01-17 02:18:39 AM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.

You know, the more I read and re-read your reply, the more interesting you become. You're a good man, and I'm glad to know there are folks like you in the world. Why you and I are on fark.com - now that is the real mystery.


I fear you give me too much credit. You might not like what I like in the long-run.
 
2013-01-17 02:22:21 AM  
As long as this guy isn't forcing anybody to do anything he shouldn't be arrested. However he needs to be arrested for the animal stuff.
 
2013-01-17 02:28:10 AM  
I bet the same jury would have allowed torture porn.
 
2013-01-17 02:30:30 AM  

Bumblefark: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.


I post from mobile with a character limit. Sorry if I sound curt, just trying to be succint
 
2013-01-17 02:30:58 AM  
I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...
 
2013-01-17 02:31:54 AM  
karlrimkus.com
I understand he represented himself.
 
2013-01-17 02:33:30 AM  

starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...


Isn't it obvious. The message is that women enjoy being shiat on.
 
2013-01-17 02:36:02 AM  

C18H27NO3: If there's music/talk on the radio I don't like, I don't tune in.
If there's a show or topic on tv that I don't like, I change the channel.
If I have a dvd in front of me of something I might find offensive, I don't play it.
Websites that contain topics I might find offensive, I don't type them in.
If someone is discussing something with me I find offensive, I change the subject or walk away.

fark that jury.
/Oh and fark that jury.


That's quite sensible, rational, mature and intelligent of you. Sadly there are far too many meddlesome ratbags* around who make it their life's work to attack others for behaviour that harms no one and has no effect on their own lives.


* (c) Viz comic
 
2013-01-17 02:36:55 AM  

James F. Campbell: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

Truth. But if you're an artist and you piss off the wrong people, you will be taken down. Just ask Mike Diana.


wow there's a name i haven't seen in 20 years.
is he somewhere playing golf with Jim Goad?

/dkdc
 
2013-01-17 02:37:45 AM  

starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...


Does it matter?

My message is no message. Whoever speaks is free. That's my message.

Again, Voltaire, de Sade, etc. Let our voices all be free.
 
2013-01-17 02:39:13 AM  
I see no problem with making bestiality porn illegal. Animals can't consent.
 
2013-01-17 02:39:49 AM  
Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?
 
2013-01-17 02:43:41 AM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?


Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.
 
2013-01-17 02:45:43 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.


When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.
 
2013-01-17 02:46:47 AM  

casual disregard: starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Does it matter?

My message is no message. Whoever speaks is free. That's my message.

Again, Voltaire, de Sade, etc. Let our voices all be free.


It does matter. If there is no message and it is simply 'noise', well, hell. We even let muncipalities regulate noise, nevermind the feds.
 
2013-01-17 02:47:49 AM  

PirateKing: In a related joke, the funniest line from last week's 30 Rock: (paraphrased because I can't remember the exact line)

"I don't want to be Harriet TubMAN... change it to Tubgirl!"


There was also a hilarious reference that Liz Lemon's dad made about "Nothin' better than Ol' Dick, it's a Lemon Party!"
I almost pooped myself laughing. My wife did not understand.

And then when she was made to understand, I was banished to the couch that night. Worth it.
 
2013-01-17 02:47:54 AM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Isn't it obvious. The message is that women enjoy being shiat on.


That or a desperate attempt to regain power lost by the patriarchy to women in the last century
 
2013-01-17 02:48:44 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.


Nature finds a way.

PNSFW
 
2013-01-17 02:50:13 AM  

starsrift: casual disregard: starsrift: I do have one question for those arguing free speech and art.

What is the message of this 'artwork'?

/ that should bring out the art history majors...

Does it matter?

My message is no message. Whoever speaks is free. That's my message.

Again, Voltaire, de Sade, etc. Let our voices all be free.

It does matter. If there is no message and it is simply 'noise', well, hell. We even let muncipalities regulate noise, nevermind the feds.


I'm exasperated. It's not noise, it's expression. It is not something that "should" be done but rather we must accept that it "can" be done.

I accept that awful people will say awful things. I accept that I must tolerate these things in order to live free.

I am an avowed leftist. I could not exist without free speech.
 
2013-01-17 02:52:15 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

Nature finds a way.

PNSFW


You know that's not what we're talking about here.
 
2013-01-17 02:55:42 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

Nature finds a way.

PNSFW


Ya ya ya, we know, the dog humped your leg one day and now your confused about your sexuality.
 
2013-01-17 02:57:04 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans.


They can't consent to being given baths, either, but they can certainly object. I don't think you or you and two of your friends together could get my Doberman to do anything he doesn't want to do. Of course, if you try to have sex with him, I'll still kill you, even though I don't think he'd let you.
 
2013-01-17 03:02:55 AM  
How is this verdict not completely unconstitutional, again?

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.


Actually, I'd buy that argument, in all fairness. Exposing workers to unsafe conditions should apply to porn as much as anything else, I'm not sure if that's the agency that requires condoms and/or absurd amounts of STD testing but it probably should be.

untaken_name: They can't consent to being given baths,


Consent isn't required for tasks that amount to taking proper care of your dependent. You can also give your kids booster shots and dock their allowance for not doing their homework without their consent.

If farking your dog was a vital part of keeping him healthy and free of infection, it wouldn't be illegal. Also dogs would probably not be quite as popular as pets with the exception of some pretty niche markets.
 
2013-01-17 03:03:39 AM  

untaken_name: Mike Chewbacca: Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans.

They can't consent to being given baths, either, but they can certainly object. I don't think you or you and two of your friends together could get my Doberman to do anything he doesn't want to do. Of course, if you try to have sex with him, I'll still kill you, even though I don't think he'd let you.


How people don't get arrested for giving their uncompliant children baths, I have no idea
 
2013-01-17 03:04:14 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

Nature finds a way.

PNSFW

You know that's not what we're talking about here.


I had assumed the animals were not 'receiving'.
 
2013-01-17 03:07:44 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.


So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?
 
2013-01-17 03:08:08 AM  
Our sexual expressions seem to mimic chimpanzees. Not sure how we compare to the bonobo's.
 
2013-01-17 03:08:46 AM  

casual disregard: I'm exasperated. It's not noise, it's expression. It is not something that "should" be done but rather we must accept that it "can" be done.

I accept that awful people will say awful things. I accept that I must tolerate these things in order to live free.

I am an avowed leftist. I could not exist without free speech.


I don't disagree with accepting that people can be allowed to say awful things. Or things, rather, that I think are awful.

But I'm not convinced this film is actually saying or expressing anything.
 
2013-01-17 03:10:53 AM  

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


This..... Willing to drop the 2nd fight over 30 round magazines if we can drop the 1st fight over shiat like this. It isn't art.
 
2013-01-17 03:11:07 AM  
FARK come to read about corprophilic videos, then discuss animal farkers
 
2013-01-17 03:12:01 AM  

Jim_Callahan: untaken_name: They can't consent to being given baths,

Consent isn't required for tasks that amount to taking proper care of your dependent. You can also give your kids booster shots and dock their allowance for not doing their homework without their consent.

If farking your dog was a vital part of keeping him healthy and free of infection, it wouldn't be illegal. Also dogs would probably not be quite as popular as pets with the exception of some pretty niche markets.



Why are you even responding to him? He is a troll, the type of person that shaves his dog, then glues the hair onto his nuts to make himself look like a grown man.
 
2013-01-17 03:12:59 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Real poo or simulated poo?

It matters.


From what I've read it wasn't real poo. Still gross, but it was some sort of chocolate mixture, and not actual poo.
 
2013-01-17 03:13:56 AM  

1derful: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?


OMFG, are you serious?
 
2013-01-17 03:15:36 AM  

starsrift: casual disregard: I'm exasperated. It's not noise, it's expression. It is not something that "should" be done but rather we must accept that it "can" be done.

I accept that awful people will say awful things. I accept that I must tolerate these things in order to live free.

I am an avowed leftist. I could not exist without free speech.

I don't disagree with accepting that people can be allowed to say awful things. Or things, rather, that I think are awful.

But I'm not convinced this film is actually saying or expressing anything.


It doesn't matter! This "film" is a piece of crap!

It cannot be against he law.

If that doesn't settle the discussion, I don't know what will.
 
2013-01-17 03:17:06 AM  
Ugh. I saw the original. OK, It grossed me out enough to the point where I don't even order chocolate soft-serve any more. Especially with sprinkles.

However, the article said there were animals involved. I'm done. Until Mr. Ed can sign a consent form, with notaries, and witnesses to his <b>compos mentis</b>... We're done. Put this turd away.
 
2013-01-17 03:17:41 AM  

Deman: FARK come to read about corprophilic videos, then discuss animal farkers


Why do you think cholos post pony pics all the time? Some farkers are the bottom of the barrel.
 
2013-01-17 03:20:52 AM  

Deman: Bumblefark: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.

I post from mobile with a character limit. Sorry if I sound curt, just trying to be succint


Fair enough. I apologize for the dick remark.

The issue for me isn't so much the ability of an animal to consent. The issue for me is that no happy and healthy human being has sex with animals. They just don't.

I certainly don't support jailing people who do have sex with animals, for much the same reasons you allude to. The person has plainly not hurt anyone else, and (while I do think it is abuse to the animal, even if no pain is felt) I don't think the injury justifies something as serious as a loss of civil liberties for the perpetrator. Maybe in a country that treated its inmates more humanely, I'd have a different opinion...but, hey, it's the US.

My problem is with the pornographer. The only possible way a guy make films like this is by exploiting some pretty vulnerable people. A pimp with a camera is still a pimp.

And a pimp that inflicts this sort of humiliation and degradation on his ladies (no matter how enthusiastic they might be about their own debasement) deserves to be stomped to death in the slowest and most painful fashion imaginable.
 
2013-01-17 03:24:10 AM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: 1derful: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

OMFG, are you serious?


Yes I am.

By your logic, any sex act between an animal and human is abuse. What if the animal instigates the act without the human's consent?
 
2013-01-17 03:27:08 AM  

Bumblefark: Deman: Bumblefark: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.

I post from mobile with a character limit. Sorry if I sound curt, just trying to be succint

Fair enough. I apologize for the dick remark.

The issue for me isn't so much the ability of an animal to consent. The issue for me is that no happy and healthy human being has sex with animals. They just don't.

I certainly don't support jailing people who do have sex with animals, for much the same reasons you allude to. The person has plainly not hurt anyone else, and (while I do think it is abuse to the animal, even if no pain is felt) I don't think the injury justifies something as serious as a loss of civil liberties for the perpetrator. Maybe in a country that treated its inmates more humanely, I'd have a different opinion...but, hey, it's the US.

My problem is with the pornographer. The only possible way a guy make films like this is by exploiting some pretty vulnerable people. A pimp with a camera is still a pimp.

And a pimp that inflicts this sort of humiliation and degradation on his ladies (no matter how enthusiastic they might be about their own debasement) deserves to be stomped to death in the slowest and most painful fashion imaginable.


How do you know the happiness and health of the people that choose to have sex with animals?

/someone's doing something i think is icky, they must be somehow damaged to want to do that!
 
2013-01-17 03:29:23 AM  
So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

*blink*
 
2013-01-17 03:30:00 AM  

1derful: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: 1derful: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

OMFG, are you serious?

Yes I am.

By your logic, any sex act between an animal and human is abuse. What if the animal instigates the act without the human's consent?


So did you have a bad experience once? Did the animal not call you the next day? WTF dude? Do you often find yourself in situations where you are at risk of being raped by an animal? I don't think I have ever once thought to myself "watch out, that animal might rape me" and I don't think I know or have heard of anybody else who has either. But maybe I just don't get out enough or don't hang around the right people?

But since we're on the subject, how does the dog get the woman's clothes off before he rapes her?
 
2013-01-17 03:31:22 AM  

Mock26: Dear Jurors,

Ever hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT?


Ever hear about not wasting everyone's time. So the movie gross. Well I've seen it, it's not that gross. Certainly we have some bankers, crooked politicians, and actual criminals to put in jail?
 
2013-01-17 03:34:32 AM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill:

So did you have a bad experience once? Did the animal not call you the next day? WTF dude? Do you often find yourself in situations where you are at risk of being raped by an animal? I don't think I have ever once thought to myself "watch out, that animal might rape me" and I don't think I know or have heard of anybody else who has either. But maybe I just don't get out enough or don't hang around the right people?



www.premiumhollywood.com
 
2013-01-17 03:36:05 AM  

dopekitty74: Bumblefark: Deman: Bumblefark: Deman: dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

True, but it was said with an eyeroll. (AN EYEROLL!). Surely, you are humbled by the passive-aggressive tactics of every petulant 14 year old, everywhere.

Stand down, sir. You are no match.

I post from mobile with a character limit. Sorry if I sound curt, just trying to be succint

Fair enough. I apologize for the dick remark.

The issue for me isn't so much the ability of an animal to consent. The issue for me is that no happy and healthy human being has sex with animals. They just don't.

I certainly don't support jailing people who do have sex with animals, for much the same reasons you allude to. The person has plainly not hurt anyone else, and (while I do think it is abuse to the animal, even if no pain is felt) I don't think the injury justifies something as serious as a loss of civil liberties for the perpetrator. Maybe in a country that treated its inmates more humanely, I'd have a different opinion...but, hey, it's the US.

My problem is with the pornographer. The only possible way a guy make films like this is by exploiting some pretty vulnerable people. A pimp with a camera is still a pimp.

And a pimp that inflicts this sort of humiliation and degradation on his ladies (no matter how enthusiastic they might be about their own debasement) deserves to be stomped to death in the slowest a ...


Well, because I spent a career studying such things.

You?
 
2013-01-17 03:36:50 AM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: 1derful: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: 1derful: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

OMFG, are you serious?

Yes I am.

By your logic, any sex act between an animal and human is abuse. What if the animal instigates the act without the human's consent?

So did you have a bad experience once? Did the animal not call you the next day? WTF dude? Do you often find yourself in situations where you are at risk of being raped by an animal? I don't think I have ever once thought to myself "watch out, that animal might rape me" and I don't think I know or have heard of anybody else who has either. But maybe I just don't get out enough or don't hang around the right people?

But since we're on the subject, how does the dog get the woman's clothes off before he rapes her?


I think we just found the victim of this brutal attack. NSFW
 
2013-01-17 03:40:13 AM  

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.


By "big first amendment supporter", I assume you mean you're significantly less than mass-deprived. Y'know, the inability to downvote is a good reason that fark loses people to reddit.
 
2013-01-17 03:47:22 AM  
What I'm getting from this thread:

1. Urgh, poop. Gross. But it's not harming anyone, so...
2. Doggy Sex. Urgh, sentient being. Not consensual. Kill the bastard.

Well, about the doggy not being cogniscent of choice:

www.howpilgrim.comv025o.popscreen.com
3.bp.blogspot.com t2.gstatic.com

Dogs will fark humans if given the chance. Fact. Some let it. And Die:

Woman Dies of Allergic Reaction to the Dog She Had Sex With [Image of a woman and a dog that did not have sex via Shutterstock]
 
2013-01-17 03:49:24 AM  

log_jammin: So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

*blink*


i think my 'wtfamireading' moment came with comparing washing your dogs ass to humping it.

fark is where analogy goes to die, and be reborn zombified.
 
2013-01-17 03:50:04 AM  

GungFu: Dogs will fark humans if given the chance. Fact. Some let it. And Die:


so never EVER turn your back on a dog, or it will rape you.
 
2013-01-17 03:50:19 AM  
RIP art. Just because something grosses you out doesn't mean it's not art. To kids, paintings and statues from the renaissance are uninteresting, crappy, and worthless while adult collectors pay millions for them. Others can be satisfied simply by blowjob videos or gangbang ones, while others need different types of sex play, even if it includes fecal matter and other stuff. Let them fantasize and enjoy what gets them excited!
 
2013-01-17 03:52:57 AM  

heap: fark is where analogy goes to die, and be reborn zombified.


That's about the best summary I've seen.

Best I can come up with is, this is where people take things to their logical conclusions...and then go 400 light years beyond that.
 
2013-01-17 03:55:55 AM  
First they came for the Potheads, but I don't smoke so I said nothing. Next they came for the gun nuts, but I don't own guns, so I said nothing. Finally they're here for the dog/pig/chicken/horse farkers and suddenly people give a fark about the bill of rights?

Farkers suck.
 
2013-01-17 03:57:16 AM  
So this is what was meant by "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

We already knew that the 1st amendment had limits. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, High Schoolers being punished for signs they held at protests outside of school. School Children not being allowed to protest and say whatever they want at School. Why is it so surprising that we have obscenity limits as well? I'm not asking is it right... I'm asking it is surprising given that, like I said, the 1st amendment isn't absolute and we still live in a relatively puritanical society. Especially with the way the Dominionists and the fundy's have been getting their second wind since Dubya and even more so Obama were elected.

The rage may be warranted, but is anyone surprised?
 
2013-01-17 03:57:27 AM  
Bestiality is weird. The claim is made that it's wrong because the animal can't consent. I'm pretty sure the cow that became my steak tonight didn't consent to having a metal bolt shoved through its brain, its throat cut open to bleed out, its flesh cleaved into manageable pieces, those pieces being cooked over a wood charcoal stove until a beautiful medium-rare, then served next to a heaping helping of mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and washed down with a cold beer.

Is it because humans possibly derive pleasure from bestiality? Well no, I wouldn't think so. I derived pleasure from my steak so that can't be it (I could probably pleasure myself WITH the steak and it still wouldn't be illegal).

Then of course there's always the problem of how cows are bred. It generally starts with some dude giving a bull a handy. Is that bestiality? Is Mike Rowe a cow rapist for artificially inseminating a cow?

Honestly, until any sexual contact done upon an animal is made illegal for any reason as, well as killing or harming an animal is still legal, the only reason I can see for making bestiality illegal is because it makes people uncomfortable and its icky.
 
2013-01-17 04:01:39 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: So this is what was meant by "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

We already knew that the 1st amendment had limits. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, High Schoolers being punished for signs they held at protests outside of school. School Children not being allowed to protest and say whatever they want at School. Why is it so surprising that we have obscenity limits as well? I'm not asking is it right... I'm asking it is surprising given that, like I said, the 1st amendment isn't absolute and we still live in a relatively puritanical society. Especially with the way the Dominionists and the fundy's have been getting their second wind since Dubya and even more so Obama were elected.

The rage may be warranted, but is anyone surprised?


You think this country would be less Jesusified if Romney was elected?
 
2013-01-17 04:02:21 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: FTFA: "Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction."

Triple Jeopardy... where the winnings can really stack up...


Well, they only said no *double* jeopardy... never triple jeopardy. So technically this is ok, the best kind of ok.

Also, there are *SO* many things wrong with this conviction =/
 
2013-01-17 04:02:30 AM  

Korzine: Bestiality is weird. The claim is made that it's wrong because the animal can't consent. I'm pretty sure the cow that became my steak tonight didn't consent to having a metal bolt shoved through its brain, its throat cut open to bleed out, its flesh cleaved into manageable pieces, those pieces being cooked over a wood charcoal stove until a beautiful medium-rare, then served next to a heaping helping of mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and washed down with a cold beer.

Is it because humans possibly derive pleasure from bestiality? Well no, I wouldn't think so. I derived pleasure from my steak so that can't be it (I could probably pleasure myself WITH the steak and it still wouldn't be illegal).

Then of course there's always the problem of how cows are bred. It generally starts with some dude giving a bull a handy. Is that bestiality? Is Mike Rowe a cow rapist for artificially inseminating a cow?

Honestly, until any sexual contact done upon an animal is made illegal for any reason as, well as killing or harming an animal is still legal, the only reason I can see for making bestiality illegal is because it makes people uncomfortable and its icky.


you know....in a way...you basically just said as long as we have capital punishment then pedophilia is ok.
 
2013-01-17 04:03:07 AM  

Korzine: Bestiality is weird. The claim is made that it's wrong because the animal can't consent. I'm pretty sure the cow that became my steak tonight didn't consent to having a metal bolt shoved through its brain, its throat cut open to bleed out, its flesh cleaved into manageable pieces, those pieces being cooked over a wood charcoal stove until a beautiful medium-rare, then served next to a heaping helping of mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and washed down with a cold beer.

Is it because humans possibly derive pleasure from bestiality? Well no, I wouldn't think so. I derived pleasure from my steak so that can't be it (I could probably pleasure myself WITH the steak and it still wouldn't be illegal).

Then of course there's always the problem of how cows are bred. It generally starts with some dude giving a bull a handy. Is that bestiality? Is Mike Rowe a cow rapist for artificially inseminating a cow?

Honestly, until any sexual contact done upon an animal is made illegal for any reason as, well as killing or harming an animal is still legal, the only reason I can see for making bestiality illegal is because it makes people uncomfortable and its icky.


Tell you what...fark a cow, and let us know how it goes. You seem an open minded sort. If it is really just an irrational societal taboo, surely you have no problem with this experiment.

Otherwise, I guess we have to assume you are a penny-ante philosopher confused by your own thought process.

Do let us know.
 
2013-01-17 04:05:53 AM  

Korzine: Bestiality is weird. The claim is made that it's wrong because the animal can't consent. I'm pretty sure the cow that became my steak tonight didn't consent to having a metal bolt shoved through its brain, its throat cut open to bleed out, its flesh cleaved into manageable pieces, those pieces being cooked over a wood charcoal stove until a beautiful medium-rare, then served next to a heaping helping of mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and washed down with a cold beer.

Is it because humans possibly derive pleasure from bestiality? Well no, I wouldn't think so. I derived pleasure from my steak so that can't be it (I could probably pleasure myself WITH the steak and it still wouldn't be illegal).

Then of course there's always the problem of how cows are bred. It generally starts with some dude giving a bull a handy. Is that bestiality? Is Mike Rowe a cow rapist for artificially inseminating a cow?

Honestly, until any sexual contact done upon an animal is made illegal for any reason as, well as killing or harming an animal is still legal, the only reason I can see for making bestiality illegal is because it makes people uncomfortable and its icky.


You haven't eaten a steak in a long time that came from a cow that was stunned/killed with a captive bolt gun. They are stunned now with electricity. Like a big ass wall mounted stun gun.
 
2013-01-17 04:06:59 AM  

thisisarepeat: Uchiha_Cycliste: So this is what was meant by "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

We already knew that the 1st amendment had limits. "Fire!" in a crowded theater, High Schoolers being punished for signs they held at protests outside of school. School Children not being allowed to protest and say whatever they want at School. Why is it so surprising that we have obscenity limits as well? I'm not asking is it right... I'm asking it is surprising given that, like I said, the 1st amendment isn't absolute and we still live in a relatively puritanical society. Especially with the way the Dominionists and the fundy's have been getting their second wind since Dubya and even more so Obama were elected.

The rage may be warranted, but is anyone surprised?

You think this country would be less Jesusified if Romney was elected?



I don't know I firmly believe that there are a shiat load of people that are more vocal and more active because the president is black. Who can say if they would pipe down and relax if we returned to the status-quo and president c.c.c.c.c.c...combo breaker was not re-elected? Needless to say; thank God! that he was re-elected

\ ♪ Nobody knows ♪
\\♫ Nobody Knows ♪
\\\obscure?
 
2013-01-17 04:07:06 AM  

thisisarepeat: Korzine: Bestiality is weird. The claim is made that it's wrong because the animal can't consent. I'm pretty sure the cow that became my steak tonight didn't consent to having a metal bolt shoved through its brain, its throat cut open to bleed out, its flesh cleaved into manageable pieces, those pieces being cooked over a wood charcoal stove until a beautiful medium-rare, then served next to a heaping helping of mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and washed down with a cold beer.

Is it because humans possibly derive pleasure from bestiality? Well no, I wouldn't think so. I derived pleasure from my steak so that can't be it (I could probably pleasure myself WITH the steak and it still wouldn't be illegal).

Then of course there's always the problem of how cows are bred. It generally starts with some dude giving a bull a handy. Is that bestiality? Is Mike Rowe a cow rapist for artificially inseminating a cow?

Honestly, until any sexual contact done upon an animal is made illegal for any reason as, well as killing or harming an animal is still legal, the only reason I can see for making bestiality illegal is because it makes people uncomfortable and its icky.

You haven't eaten a steak in a long time that came from a cow that was stunned/killed with a captive bolt gun. They are stunned now with electricity. Like a big ass wall mounted stun gun.


Ergo, the cow was totally asking for it.
 
2013-01-17 04:07:15 AM  

log_jammin: Korzine: Bestiality is weird. The claim is made that it's wrong because the animal can't consent. I'm pretty sure the cow that became my steak tonight didn't consent to having a metal bolt shoved through its brain, its throat cut open to bleed out, its flesh cleaved into manageable pieces, those pieces being cooked over a wood charcoal stove until a beautiful medium-rare, then served next to a heaping helping of mashed potatoes, corn on the cob, and washed down with a cold beer.

Is it because humans possibly derive pleasure from bestiality? Well no, I wouldn't think so. I derived pleasure from my steak so that can't be it (I could probably pleasure myself WITH the steak and it still wouldn't be illegal).

Then of course there's always the problem of how cows are bred. It generally starts with some dude giving a bull a handy. Is that bestiality? Is Mike Rowe a cow rapist for artificially inseminating a cow?

Honestly, until any sexual contact done upon an animal is made illegal for any reason as, well as killing or harming an animal is still legal, the only reason I can see for making bestiality illegal is because it makes people uncomfortable and its icky.

you know....in a way...you basically just said as long as we have capital punishment then pedophilia is ok.


How?
 
2013-01-17 04:08:30 AM  

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: 1derful: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: 1derful: Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.

So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?

OMFG, are you serious?

Yes I am.

By your logic, any sex act between an animal and human is abuse. What if the animal instigates the act without the human's consent?

So did you have a bad experience once? Did the animal not call you the next day? WTF dude? Do you often find yourself in situations where you are at risk of being raped by an animal? I don't think I have ever once thought to myself "watch out, that animal might rape me" and I don't think I know or have heard of anybody else who has either. But maybe I just don't get out enough or don't hang around the right people?

But since we're on the subject, how does the dog get the woman's clothes off before he rapes her?



I'm a 5' tall female. When I was a teenager, a giant stray black lab jumped me in my front yard. He pinned me down on the ground and went to work. If I had been involved in an activity that required little clothing, such as swimming, the dog absolutely would have successfully raped me. Fortunately, that was not the case. It took my dad and two neighbors to pull him off of me. I'm not saying it's a common situation, but it can happen.

On another note, there are some very interesting discussions in this thread. Who knew fecal porn and animal farking could inspire such a wealth of ideas?
 
2013-01-17 04:14:26 AM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: Dear Mr. Campbell, you may be right. Please offer a better definition. I'm open about this. Tonight may just get interesting after all.


Research positive liberty and negative liberty. Also read up on the tragedy of the commons. What you're espousing, simple libertarianism, isn't well-equipped to deal with the real problems facing humans in modern society. Sorry I don't have more time to engage you.
 
2013-01-17 04:18:08 AM  

GungFu: Woman Dies of Allergic Reaction to the Dog She Had Sex With [Image of a woman and a dog that did not have sex via Shutterstock]


Oh man, I just like to imagine the chick in the photo reading this article.

I'll just sell this cute stock photo of me and Sparky. Maybe a pet hotel or something can use it on their website, yay!
WOMAN KILLED BY DOG SPERM AFTER SEXING UP DOG SHE MET ON INTERNET
._.
 
2013-01-17 04:19:35 AM  
If he gets 4 years for 2 videos... oh man am I in trouble :P

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


1 Fark you
2. Fark you to hell
3. No there should be no limits right up til someone is actually victimized. NOTHING short of that should be limited.
4. Fark your sexual morals
5. You don't understand what feces is in the first place. Mostly partially digested food but also bacteria THAT LIVES IN YOUR INTESTINES(population TRIILIONS). So if a person ate their own poo (assuming it just came out and did not land on the floor/dirt/etc), they would be taking in (mostly helptful) bacteria that ALREADY live in their intestines. And also food.

Eating another person's poo caries the risk that they may have some sort of infection(or even parasite) that you can thus catch from them.
6. Things like that do NOT need to be stopped. I can see no reason that the role of government in making things illegal should extend beyond stopping you from doing things that harm other people, and conversely stopping other people from doing things that harm you. There is no reason for them to intrude into peoples lives such to stop us from willingly choosing behaviors which only harm ourselves. Be that drinking alcohol(as long as we don't drive), requiring seat belts, or having very odd fetishes.
7. Fark you, freedom is more important than your morals.

spman: I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.


Fecal Transplant biatch. Yes, that can involve doctors actually making someone digest feces... to save their life. Seems you have something off in your facts.

I'd also like to point out that dogs will instinctually eat feces they just happen to find laying around(where any type of bacteria has a good chance to multiply within it). They live. It is nutrition.

spman: Do you believe that if a man is so desperate to provide for his family, and finds someone willing to pay them enough to last the rest of their lives, and all the man has to do is shoot himself on camera? It doesn't matter if he dies or not, just shoot himself on camera, not in the arm or in the foot, maybe in the gut or the chest where you reasonably stand a chance of hitting some vital organs. Should this be legal?


You know I'm actually fine with that on a basis of what should be legal. I think anyone offering that deal to the man is a serious piece of shiat, but still if that man is free to choose(with no consequence from refusing) then I don't think there should be a law against it. I think that suicide should be perfectly legal. See #6 above.

If you can't even choose to cease living(no matter your motivations), then you have not any real freedom at all. You might think that is crazy, but if the government alone can make that illegal, then they have made YOUR LIFE their choice. In other words, you don't even own your own life.
Authoritarians like you can screw off now.
 
2013-01-17 04:25:30 AM  

log_jammin:

you know....in a way...you basically just said as long as we have capital punishment then pedophilia is ok.


I'm pretty sure killing and eating children is illegal as well as is artificially inseminating them. So that would make the criteria of pedophilia being illegal as not hypocritical. I'm not 100% sure what capital punishment has to do with anything either. Unless your arguing that using capital punishment on children should also make pedophilia legal. Which even then isn't really the same as my argument as I'm pretty sure they don't mass use the death penalty on children.

Bumblefark: Tell you what...fark a cow, and let us know how it goes. You seem an open minded sort. If it is really just an irrational societal taboo, surely you have no problem with this experiment.

Otherwise, I guess we have to assume you are a penny-ante philosopher confused by your own thought process.

Do let us know.


No, because I think bestiality is gross. I also think sex between two dudes is gross too, but I'm not on a morality crusade to get it banned because I realize that my personal feelings shouldn't dictate law for everyone else. Plus, I'm pretty sure even if bestiality is hypothetically legal, having sex with someones cows would still be breaking some sort of property laws.
 
2013-01-17 04:27:43 AM  

thisisarepeat: How?


he said that since we can kill it without it's consent, then we shouldn't make farking it illegal since it can't give its consent. right?

well then if we can kill people legally without their consent(capital punishment, war, etc..), then obviously we shouldn't make it illegal to fark people who can't give their consent (children, the disabled, etc..)either.
 
2013-01-17 04:28:29 AM  

Korzine: but I'm not on a morality crusade to get it banned because I realize that my personal feelings shouldn't dictate law for everyone else


This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.
 
2013-01-17 04:28:36 AM  
Now where the hell am I going to get any of these videos since he is out of business?
 
2013-01-17 04:34:57 AM  

Korzine: I'm pretty sure killing and eating children is illegal as well as is artificially inseminating them.


I wasn't talking about what is currently legal or illegal.
 
2013-01-17 04:38:35 AM  

log_jammin: thisisarepeat: How?

he said that since we can kill it without it's consent, then we shouldn't make farking it illegal since it can't give its consent. right?

well then if we can kill people legally without their consent(capital punishment, war, etc..), then obviously we shouldn't make it illegal to fark people who can't give their consent (children, the disabled, etc..)either.


I'm not going to go on a big pro rush rant so you can take a breath/shot/hit/whatever. But why do you believe it would be traumatic t...Fark this. Of course its wrong to fark livestock, but with all those stoners out there do you think its an effective use of resources to try this cow farkerologist?
 
2013-01-17 04:41:06 AM  
You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.
 
2013-01-17 04:42:40 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: MayoSlather: Uranus Is Huge!: Real poo or simulated poo?

It matters.

From what I've read it wasn't real poo. Still gross, but it was some sort of chocolate mixture, and not actual poo.

NEVER let them see the end of The Bloodhound Gang's video "Bad Touch"


It was still served from an anus.
 
2013-01-17 04:43:56 AM  

thisisarepeat: You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.


precisely.
 
2013-01-17 04:45:59 AM  
Thank God that Archer ad teh two native girls being covered in every bodily fluid known to man, when Archer is the Prate Kind isn't considered obscene.
 
2013-01-17 04:46:46 AM  

ariosto: Meh. Everyone knows swap.avi was better.


This.

/obligatory Something Awful swap.avi review
 
2013-01-17 04:47:40 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Thank God that Archer ad teh two native girls being covered in every bodily fluid known to man, when Archer is the Prate Kind isn't considered obscene.


I just started watching that show yesterday. nice to know what I have to look forward to.
 
2013-01-17 04:51:11 AM  

log_jammin: Uchiha_Cycliste: Thank God that Archer ad teh two native girls being covered in every bodily fluid known to man, when Archer is the Prate Kind isn't considered obscene.

I just started watching that show yesterday. nice to know what I have to look forward to.


Archer as the Pirate King is pretty Bad-ass. And Bonus, there is a super bad-ass character that is voiced by Brock f*cking Samson!
 
2013-01-17 04:52:14 AM  
also, sorry bout the pseudo-spoiler.
 
2013-01-17 04:53:37 AM  
And this travesty of justice is covered on a site on which one cannot spell shiat.
 
2013-01-17 04:57:16 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.


If by god botherer you mean religious, yes I am. I believe in Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated. Banning people from potential happiness based on a religion they may not even believe certainly fails that litmus test.

thisisarepeat: You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.


Yes, but generally there is zero pleasure in gassing animals. Certainly no one who I ever know who worked that job (very limited pool I will admit) enjoyed that aspect of it. Usually the person torturing animals is deriving some sort of pleasure. So it's not really what I was trying to (apparently badly) go for (which is that basically bestiality is a weird beast so to speak). I'm also not sure I agree with sex being equal torture. Yes, for small animals that can definitely be an issue, but I'm pretty sure a mare isn't being... eh... aware... of a human males member.

The poo thing though definitely shouldn't be illegal. Gross as it may be too.
 
2013-01-17 05:03:39 AM  

log_jammin: thisisarepeat: You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.

precisely.


OK congrats, you can find a logic flaw in a Rush show. You do realize that if you ignored him completely, no matter how obscene his shiat gets, that he will end up on satellite radio and you can forget about him. Or do you need him?
 
2013-01-17 05:04:39 AM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


Welcome to Poobama's Shartmerica.
 
2013-01-17 05:05:37 AM  

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.

If by god botherer you mean religious, yes I am. I believe in Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated. Banning people from potential happiness based on a religion they may not even believe certainly fails that litmus test.


No, by God botherers I mean the Fundys and the Dominionists. The ones who are in your face, believe this is a Christian country and that you are bad for not believing on Jesus too, and in exactly the same way as them. You know, the ones who totally ignore Matthew 6:6 IIRC. I sorta meant exactly what it sounded like with botherers... the ones that bother you about their faith and what they think of you and yours. The ones who want our laws to reflect their beliefs
 
2013-01-17 05:09:12 AM  

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: This makes you a better person than practically 99.99% of God-botherers in this country.

\Please don't mistake this comment for implying that you are a god botherer.
\\I'm just saying you are a much better person than all the asses that believe they should do what you just said you wouldn't.

If by god botherer you mean religious, yes I am. I believe in Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated. Banning people from potential happiness based on a religion they may not even believe certainly fails that litmus test.

thisisarepeat: You shouldn't be able to torture kittens just because animal control gasses them without written consent.

Yes, but generally there is zero pleasure in gassing animals. Certainly no one who I ever know who worked that job (very limited pool I will admit) enjoyed that aspect of it. Usually the person torturing animals is deriving some sort of pleasure. So it's not really what I was trying to (apparently badly) go for (which is that basically bestiality is a weird beast so to speak). I'm also not sure I agree with sex being equal torture. Yes, for small animals that can definitely be an issue, but I'm pretty sure a mare isn't being... eh... aware... of a human males member.

The poo thing though definitely shouldn't be illegal. Gross as it may be too.


I agree. I dont imagine a dairy cow going through any where near as much distress, being simply farked by a human, as any toy breed has to endure being dressed as a pumpkin etc.
 
2013-01-17 05:14:46 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: farkRus: I'm a 5' tall female. When I was a teenager, a giant stray black lab jumped me in my front yard. He pinned me down on the ground and went to work. If I had been involved in an activity that required little clothing, such as swimming, the dog absolutely would have successfully raped me. Fortunately, that was not the case. It took my dad and two neighbors to pull him off of me. I'm not saying it's a common situation, but it can happen.

On another note, there are some very interesting discussions in this thread. Who knew fecal porn and animal farking could inspire such a wealth of ideas?

I have been assured this is bullshiat. There are no females on the internet.


You've been misinformed. There are plenty of females on the internet. We just all happen to have ridiculously sharp knees.
 
2013-01-17 05:14:58 AM  

thisisarepeat: OK congrats, you can find a logic flaw in a Rush show. You do realize that if you ignored him completely, no matter how obscene his shiat gets, that he will end up on satellite radio and you can forget about him. Or do you need him?


I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2013-01-17 05:20:57 AM  

Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated


I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.
 
2013-01-17 05:21:27 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: No, by God botherers I mean the Fundys and the Dominionists. The ones who are in your face, believe this is a Christian country and that you are bad for not believing on Jesus too, and in exactly the same way as them. You know, the ones who totally ignore Matthew 6:6 IIRC. I sorta meant exactly what it sounded like with botherers... the ones that bother you about their faith and what they think of you and yours. The ones who want our laws to reflect their beliefs


Ah okay then. I'm not a god botherer then. I certainly don't like being proselytized at, can't imagine any others are too thrilled about it either.

thisisarepeat: I agree. I dont imagine a dairy cow going through any where near as much distress, being simply farked by a human, as any toy breed has to endure being dressed as a pumpkin etc.


I knew a dog who would hunch with her nose almost pushed into the carpet, shake, and whine pitifully while staring sadly at people when dressed up. I'd never seen that dog ever act like that before or since (even when wearing a walk harness). Luckily the person felt so bad I've never seen that dog wearing anything else since then.
 
2013-01-17 05:31:31 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated

I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.


And this is why I need to learn to refresh before posting. Please, don't take my last post as accusing you of proselytizing, that was completely unconnected to this post. Yours was a much better post than I could muster at this point (insomnia, wee). I try to not be one of those old testament, strangely not always easy. It certainly is an easy way out of an argument you may not be comfortable with.
 
2013-01-17 05:43:48 AM  

Korzine: Uchiha_Cycliste: Korzine: Jesus setting aside some of the laws of the old testament and in him saying something about treating others like I would want to be treated

I guess I should have elaborated/shared my views on this too. My view of things is that the Old testament was based on the idea of conformity through fear, and the New testament was based on the idea of obeying out of love. Back when things were just getting started people needed to be threatened into behaving. You follow the rules or I'm going to friggin' spank you, and spank you for all eternity, it's going to suck.

In the new Testament, Jesus set up a whole new Ball game. Love others as you love yourself. Treat all other people as if they were your brother, friend, family and neighbor. Further, he set things up such that if you really believed in him, these actions would follow organically. You wouldn't be acting like a good person for the sake of redemption. And you sure as hell wouldn't be saved merely by saying you believe in Jesus.. Salvation comes through following in Jesus' footsteps, because you love you fellow man and can't bear to not help when the opportunity is available. I believe that a true belief in Jesus, and an understanding of his message would lead one to live a selfless and loving life because you have internalized his message and can't help but care four your brother(s) and sister(s). Similarly, when you say you are a Christian and you say you believe in Jesus but you still act like a shiat-head. Either you don't really believe in Jesus or you don't understand his message of peace through love, not through fear.

Anyways, I agree with you Jesus set up a new covenant that was mutually exclusive with the old one and there for made the old one null and void. Likewise this means that someone who obeys the minutia of the old testament laws, "because Jesus" has an ulterior motive and they totally don't get what he was saying.

And this is why I need to learn to refresh before posting. Please, don't take my last post as accusing you of proselytizing, that was completely unconnected to this post. Yours was a much better post than I could muster at this point (insomnia, wee). I try to not be one of those old testament, strangely not always easy. It certainly is an easy way out of an argument you may not be comfortable with.


No worries Bud, I made two posts addressing two separate issues. You have done nothing wrong.

It is an easy way out of an argument, because there is quite a disconnect between understanding what Jesus said, and actually living it in today's world. Frankly, being like Jesus is impractical at best and impossible at worst. Naturally we rationalize that as long as we do the best that we can it'll probably be enough; but that enters into a whole host of thorny theological issues where in you need to analyze your motives for your behaviors and that involves a lot of uncomfortable introspection. Jesus sure was a tough act to follow.

The most common cop-out that I see, and I see it all the time, is people who claim that simply saying that they have accepted Jesus as their savior is sufficient. I wholly and completely disagree 100%. If that belief isn't reflected in one's actions and just as importantly in one's motives for their actions I think that person is boned. At the end of the day I believe salvation is found through hearnestly
 
2013-01-17 05:51:06 AM  
fiddle sticks...
earnestly loving one's follow men and woman and acting on that love for the sake of caring for them. Anything short of acting out of love, and demonstrating you believe in Jesus and love him through your actions is insufficient. They will know you are a Christian by the way that you act, and they reasons that you act that way.
You don't do the right thing because you are trying to do the right thing to be saved. You do the right thing because you love your fellow man and can't help but do everything in your power to help and comfort and care for and love them.
I'm sure this view point is quite odd coming from someone who is pretty damn sure there is no God, but still wonders quite a bit about it. I was a good Catholic until College, when I really started looking at the Catholic doctrine and asking questions that my priests didn't have sufficient answers for.Twas even an altar boy. I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat. I think that you are judged on how you acted and why, and if learning about Jesus and his message of peace and love is what got you on that track, great. If you act the exact same way but have never heard of Jesus, or you subscribe to Islam or Buddhism, that's great too.
 
2013-01-17 05:52:08 AM  
I'm pretty sure we were discussing farking animals and eating shiat before you guys showed up.
 
2013-01-17 05:59:18 AM  
Well, shiat.....

And not a single mention of farking a dead dog in front of a day care center. You'll are slippin'.

and has anyone seen |X|Jim|X| in the past while?
 
2013-01-17 06:00:37 AM  
better?
Can't we talk about obscenity and theology? I mean, I already gave my opinion that this shouldn't be a surprising ruling. Aggravating yes, but it's not out of the blue.What else is there to say?
 
2013-01-17 06:08:42 AM  
i.imgur.comi.imgur.com
 
2013-01-17 06:11:02 AM  
I thought the obscenity-meister looked like Commander Adama
i.imgur.comwww.walkingtaco.com
 
2013-01-17 06:18:15 AM  

Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.


Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend
 
2013-01-17 06:20:34 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend


then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
 
2013-01-17 06:23:08 AM  
media.reason.comimg2.timeinc.net

/Meh all the good ones were taken already.
//Gene Simmons oddly still available.
 
2013-01-17 06:28:17 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?


ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second
 
2013-01-17 06:29:52 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second


I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.
 
2013-01-17 06:49:02 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.


Ok probably. My fault.
 
2013-01-17 06:56:41 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.

Ok probably. My fault.


's all good.
 
2013-01-17 07:03:09 AM  

pup.socket: And this travesty of justice is covered on a site on which one cannot spell shiat.


That's only because many Farkers view the site at work and those words will get the site blacklisted on workplace filters. Nothing at all to do with the actual content of the conversation.
 
2013-01-17 07:03:48 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


Company and person. Different words and different meanings.

Manfred J. Hatton and moron. Different words and same meaning.
 
2013-01-17 07:04:31 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Uchiha_Cycliste: Warlordtrooper: Nuclear Monk: Turns out there is a limit to what is acceptable and what isn't.

That limit is corn.

Unless its the second amendment in which case no reasonable restrictions should apply

What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

ThAt puts uninformed people in harms way. This does not

So why shouldn't the second amendment be subject to regulations. If you believe that rights can be restricted how come that doesn't apply to the second

I never said that. I do think they can be restricted. I said as much in my OP. I thought you were saying the 1st is absolute and there can be no restrictions. I think we misread each other.

Ok probably. My fault.


images1.wikia.nocookie.net

Someone said "fire"!
 
2013-01-17 07:07:21 AM  
I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.
 
2013-01-17 07:08:54 AM  
On one hand, free speech is a constitutional right.
One the other, the "artist" guy is just a talentless shock jock.
 
2013-01-17 07:26:45 AM  
Good. I have no problem with reasonable limits on the bill of rights. It was designed to make a freer, better society not be a suicide pact to make the country worst.
 
2013-01-17 07:30:07 AM  
Sending him to jail is just giving him new first-hand inspiration for his art.
 
2013-01-17 07:32:38 AM  
Bestiality should be illegal.

Activity between two consenting human adults, however obscene, should not be illegal.
 
2013-01-17 07:41:18 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.


Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.
 
2013-01-17 07:44:21 AM  

spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


Goes beyond free speech? Unless it directly incites violence it isn't beyond free speech. As long as they are willing participants, govt should be hands off.
 
2013-01-17 07:44:30 AM  

spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.


So you think MMA should be outlawed?
 
2013-01-17 07:46:07 AM  

Wayne 985: casual disregard: spman: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.

No, fark your limits. I refuse to accept that answer.

I cannot state this more strongly. My government has no place in regulating speech. You have no place in regulating freedom.

Well, that's a bit much. I'm pretty happy with jailing people who make kiddie porn and death threats.


Threat, child abuse.

That's not a judgement on speech.
 
2013-01-17 07:46:30 AM  

bacchanalias and consequences: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

So much this. If freedom of speech protects Westboro and the KKK how does it not protect to this.


Apparently, POOP THREADS are also verboten in the justice system, too. A 4-year bannination. Dayum.
 
2013-01-17 07:49:54 AM  

DemonEater: Bondith: Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?

Mistrials for one allow charges to be re-filed


Were they mistrials? I didn't see it in TFA, but that doesn't mean I might've missed it...
 
2013-01-17 07:53:58 AM  

Mock26: Dear Jurors,

Ever hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT?


WTF is it worth since our own government doesn't even follow the Supreme Law of the Land? You expect our juries to?
 
2013-01-17 07:55:10 AM  

liam76:

Goes beyond free speech? Unless it directly incites violence it isn't beyond free speech. As long as they are willing participants, govt should be hands off.


How do you determine if someone is a willing participant? If they are coerced, mislead, under mental distress, or under the influence of any drugs does that negate consent?
 
2013-01-17 07:55:57 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: AverageAmericanGuy: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: Am I the only one here who didn't miss the part about animals or is animal abuse not a big deal any more?

Animal abuse is abuse in much the same way self abuse is abuse.

When I abuse myself, I give myself consent. Therefore, it is not abuse. Animals cannot consent to engaging in sex acts with humans. Therefore, it is abuse.


Your logic is flawed, because the concept of consent can only be applied to people. Animals, regardless of how we interact with them, are considered chattel.

If consent were able to be applied to animals, then someone having sex with animals is an infinitesimally minor problem when compared with the now huge problem that we have animal slavery, animal murder, etc.

In otherwords, I think being able to string up a pig by its legs, slice its throat with a blade, allow the blood to drain from its body as it dies, only then to harvest its flesh for us to eat... is slightly more of a consent problem than some creeper in a barn. The non-consensual forced-impregnation of animals is probably a bigger concern too. Unless you consider the fact that every single turkey sold in stores is the product of forced impregnation...

As I said, trying to use the concept of consent in a discussion regarding animals is just showing that you don't really understand what you are trying to say.
 
2013-01-17 07:56:44 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.


Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.
 
2013-01-17 07:57:24 AM  
s8.postimage.org
 
2013-01-17 07:57:52 AM  

xanadian: Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.

Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.


Of course, with that all being said, all you need is a super genius prosecutor to go after WBC and claim that their radically-religious public displays also are a form of "obscene."
 
2013-01-17 08:04:48 AM  
thatprettyfitchick.com
 
2013-01-17 08:07:16 AM  

xanadian: Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.


All I can think is what does this say about our society where in order to defend freedom of speech, we have to defend this guy?
 
2013-01-17 08:09:23 AM  

Carth: liam76:

Goes beyond free speech? Unless it directly incites violence it isn't beyond free speech. As long as they are willing participants, govt should be hands off.

How do you determine if someone is a willing participant? If they are coerced, mislead, under mental distress, or under the influence of any drugs does that negate consent?


Holy shiat, how does anyone determine if anyone is a willing participant?

How the fark do I know if the bus driver driving my bus isn't being coerced, misled, under mental distress (duress I think you mean?)
 
2013-01-17 08:14:13 AM  

xanadian: DemonEater: Bondith: Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?

Mistrials for one allow charges to be re-filed

Were they mistrials? I didn't see it in TFA, but that doesn't mean I might've missed it...


The first two were declared mistrials. In the first trial it was discovered that the presiding judge had posted some freaky stuff of his own on the internet, so a mistrial was declared. The second trial the jury was deadlocked.
 
2013-01-17 08:14:49 AM  

thisisarepeat: Next they came for the gun nuts


Well, the problem is that never actually happened.
 
2013-01-17 08:17:12 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: xanadian: Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.

All I can think is what does this say about our society where in order to defend freedom of speech, we have to defend this guy?


In the past we had to defend free speech the rights of the Klan. Currently we have to defend the free speech rights of the Westborro Church. It sucks and it turns my stomach, but in order to enjoy free speech and expression, sometimes we have to defend some of the most disgusting forms of it.
 
2013-01-17 08:17:13 AM  

ariosto: Meh. Everyone knows swap.avi was better.


horsegag.avi

with sound up full
 
2013-01-17 08:17:40 AM  
media.reason.com

Leaving that woman unexploited is making that Native American cry!
 
2013-01-17 08:24:32 AM  

xanadian: Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.

Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.


FTA:

In practice, you find out whether you committed it only after you have been arrested and prosecuted

That's the biggest, scariest part of the article for me right here. I didn't read all of Miller v. California but the test:

- The average person, applying local community standards, looking at the work in its entirety, appeals to the prurient interest.
- The work must describe or depict, in an obviously offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions.
- The work as a whole must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values".

doesn't meet what I would consider a tandard for objectivity and consistency. There's no way a filmmaker in some backroom in LA can predict what a Mormon enclave in Utah (the "local community") would think of his work. It could be argued that anyone who was so profoundly offended by this work couldn't honestly swear that it "appeals to the prurient interest" because what makes it offensive (namely the poo) precludes their finding it arousing.

Also, wouldn't this be an ex post facto charge? Could the filmmaker not argue that an average person in his local community at that time would not have found the work offensive?
 
2013-01-17 08:27:30 AM  
Subby should have used the hero tag for this selfless man fighting on all our behalves for the freedom of genuine artistic expression.
 
2013-01-17 08:27:38 AM  
I admit that I had forgotten that obscenity charges were even a thing anymore. It is like when you hear of someone being charged with adultery or sodomy. It seems like a throw-back to the 50s.
 
2013-01-17 08:30:16 AM  

pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.

Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.


Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.
 
2013-01-17 08:32:28 AM  
i266.photobucket.com

Missing the teardrop.
 
2013-01-17 08:36:41 AM  
thehomestarmy.com

now in 3D!!!!!
 
2013-01-17 08:39:47 AM  

ongbok: In the past we had to defend free speech the rights of the Klan. Currently we have to defend the free speech rights of the Westborro Church. It sucks and it turns my stomach, but in order to enjoy free speech and expression, sometimes we have to defend some of the most disgusting forms of it.


Yea I know, just my opinion and all that. The f*cked up thing? I can actually understand the racists and the hate mongers but the people eating poop? Nope, can't figure it out.
 
2013-01-17 08:42:13 AM  
kim jong-un
Carth: liam76:


Goes beyond free speech? Unless it directly incites violence it isn't beyond free speech. As long as they are willing participants, govt should be hands off.

How do you determine if someone is a willing participant? If they are coerced, mislead, under mental distress, or under the influence of any drugs does that negate consent?

Holy shiat, how does anyone determine if anyone is a willing participant?

How the fark do I know if the bus driver driving my bus isn't being coerced, misled, under mental distress (duress I think you mean?)


Awesome point! I'm being coerced by the power company, the water company and several banks to show up for work. Hey, as long as the boss hears the keyboard clacking, she thinks I'm building damn LiveCycle form. Truth is, I already built the damn forms but I post one every couple of days. Plus, I have web pages compiling! You know web pages don't compile and I know that web pages don't compile. But the boss doesn't know. And knowledge is power.

I have to go and pay tribute to one of my many evil oppressors, the Credit Union, this afternoon. If I don't they'll take away the wife's car and put a hurt on me called a 'lien'. Because the car isn't worth what is owed. I'd love to be free and sit in the middle of a big green field and shoot flare guns at passing jet liners but I can't I have to sit here and act busy. Well, back to the grind. Julie from Accounting should be walking in from the parking lot and I don't want to miss those legs.
I'm just takin' what they're givin' cause I'm working for a living.
 
2013-01-17 08:59:06 AM  
www.gramlingville.com
 
2013-01-17 09:01:58 AM  

LemSkroob: Its funny, you are only allowed one chance to defend yourself, but you can be dragged into a courtroom over and over again. All the prosecutor needs is to win one game, and they have the series, but the defense needs to have a perfect record and win every game.


Yes, isnt' this technically double jeapordy?
 
2013-01-17 09:03:28 AM  
I used to think I'd never FARK note someone in red 5 as "Beastialty Apologist".

Clearly those days are over. Sighs of the Apocalypse, man.
 
2013-01-17 09:04:28 AM  
Lookup Hitler reacts to 2 girls 1 cup on you tube, its rather funny.
 
2013-01-17 09:05:31 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.

Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.

Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.


You must have talked to a pre-vatican II priest, because that's not Catholic Teaching. Not at all. Last Easter Mass we had someone who converted from Islam to Catholicism. She said she was worried about whether her mother would enter heaven, and Father told her that "yes, of course she is in heaven". Good works are more important than faith in many cases. You do not need to be religious to enter heaven, according to Church Doctrine.
 
2013-01-17 09:06:35 AM  

GungFu: What I'm getting from this thread:

1. Urgh, poop. Gross. But it's not harming anyone, so...
2. Doggy Sex. Urgh, sentient being. Not consensual. Kill the bastard.

Well, about the doggy not being cogniscent of choice:

[www.howpilgrim.com image 320x304][v025o.popscreen.com image 480x360]
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 198x300] [t2.gstatic.com image 286x176]

Dogs will fark humans if given the chance. Fact. Some let it. And Die:

Woman Dies of Allergic Reaction to the Dog She Had Sex With [Image of a woman and a dog that did not have sex via Shutterstock]


My damn co-worker came to my desk just as I'm scrolling past a collage of dogs humping legs. Lol.

/Smh
 
2013-01-17 09:08:31 AM  

casual disregard:

No, fark your limits. I refuse to accept that answer.

I cannot state this more strongly. My government has no place in regulating speech. You have no place in regulating freedom.


Animal abuse is not covered under the 1st Amendment, there's no rights for that. Poop....have at it.
 
2013-01-17 09:10:04 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Activity between two consenting human adults, however obscene, should not be illegal.


Obscenity is considered illegal under US law
 
2013-01-17 09:11:40 AM  

Rockstone: Uchiha_Cycliste: pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.

Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.

Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.

You must have talked to a pre-vatican II priest, because that's not Catholic Teaching. Not at all. Last Easter Mass we had someone who converted from Islam to Catholicism. She said she was worried about whether her mother would enter heaven, and Father told her that "yes, of course she is in heaven". Good works are more important than faith in many cases. You do not need to be religious to enter heaven, according to Church Doctrine.


That's pretty awesome. And not to be a prick, but can you provide some citation? I've always been told (as I said) that the sacraments were necessary for salvation.
Thank you for correcting my misconceptions, on an unrelated not I really wish the church had dealt with the sexual abuse issues differently. Even considering my waning belief in a higher power, sometimes I miss being part of the Church, but I can't in good conscience support that organization.
 
2013-01-17 09:12:11 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: spman: When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.


You guys are talking about shooting AWs, right?
 
2013-01-17 09:12:46 AM  

zekeburger: I hope the jurors don't ever see Hot Kinky Jo. I've seen a few of her videos and am still trying to figure out how she does it.


Her butthole is a Tardis.
 
2013-01-17 09:14:00 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.


It's not unusual for people to make stuff up when they don't know the real teaching, even if you are part of the religious life. This was especially true for many of the older generations. Per the Catechism: 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

You can read around that quote in the source to figure out how they get there, but the Church believes that they are required to spread the teachings and faith in order to more easily give people the graces to get to heaven. However, if you don't believe for some reason on your own, due to past negative experiences with religion, or you were simply ignorant of Jesus, you can still attain heaven through special graces that God may give outside the Church. So, it is the easier versus more difficult path to heaven. They are being specific that it is not that you simply reject the teachings, but that through ignorance or being misled is what causes the issue.
 
2013-01-17 09:14:44 AM  

GavinTheAlmighty: zekeburger: I hope the jurors don't ever see Hot Kinky Jo. I've seen a few of her videos and am still trying to figure out how she does it.

Her butthole is a Tardis.


SO THAT'S HOW OBAMA CHANGES THINGS SO MUCH!
 
2013-01-17 09:18:55 AM  

pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.


Sorry, source link problems.
 
2013-01-17 09:23:06 AM  

pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.

It's not unusual for people to make stuff up when they don't know the real teaching, even if you are part of the religious life. This was especially true for many of the older generations. Per the Catechism: 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

You can read around that quote in the source to figure out how they get there, but the Church believes that they are required to spread the teachings and faith in order to more easily give people the graces to get to heaven. However, if you don't believe for some reason on your own, due to past negative experiences with religion, or you were simply ignorant of Jesus, you can still attain heaven through special graces that God may give outside the Church. So, it is the easier versus more difficult path to heaven. They are being specific that it is not that you simply reject the teachings, but that through ignorance or being misled is what causes the issue.


That's awesome. And I am guessing that was a Papal Edict. Also, you were right, I had spoken with quite old priests. The kind that shuffle around with their daily parishioners, not the youthful energetic ones that hold Saturday evening r Sunday Mass, I could only really go talk to em on weekdays and I targeted arriving after the daily morning mass. Thanks!
 
2013-01-17 09:36:13 AM  
spman:
I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.

Actually this isnt true. Its dangerous to eat shiat that came from someone else, but not your own. There's a chance of illness, but not major league disease.

[the more you know.jpg]
 
2013-01-17 09:40:30 AM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


He's a nasty freak, so I don't give a fark. You can find people depraved or desperate enough to do anything. It still doesn't mean that you aren't preying on them. If he's an "artist" and this free expression of ideas means so much to him, how come he isn't making movies of himself eating shiat and farking animals?

Yeah, freedom, blah blah blah. fark him and fark all you perverts who enjoy looking at stuff like this. There's something wrong with you.
 
2013-01-17 09:41:01 AM  
It's a sure sign of how annoying Fark has gotten with all the gun troll threads that one about diarrhea and dog dicks comes as a relief.
 
2013-01-17 09:41:28 AM  

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.

It was when Obama was elected.

/FTFE
 
2013-01-17 09:42:15 AM  

pkellmey: pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.

Sorry, source link problems.


It's fantastic, it almost perfectly reflects the conclusions I came to on my own XD. I has a glad.
 
2013-01-17 09:45:30 AM  
pkellmey
I also really like that In the tab, to the right of "Catechism of the Catholic Church" Is the Sun* logo

\SMI,
\\1.bp.blogspot.com
\\\I love(d) Sun
 
2013-01-17 09:46:41 AM  
To the left, damnit, to the left... I feel like my sister now.

\Or my GF, but she has an excuse, Eye doctors constantly have to invert their L and R's
 
2013-01-17 09:52:36 AM  
So... No Rule 34?
 
2013-01-17 09:53:15 AM  
The DOJ: We can't keep out the illegals, prosecute corrupt banks or bankers, or keep track of the guns ....but don't YOU BE LOOKIN AT DA PORNOS or we GIT U!
 
2013-01-17 09:56:06 AM  
Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction. According to Morality in Media, Isaacs' sentence "sends a strong message to the porn industry and to the U.S. Department of Justice that the sexual exploitation of women by pornographers is wrong that if we dont like what your doing morally then we will EVENTUALLY put you prison for something, no matter what the law actually is."

What they did was disgusting, all of them. First amendment just took a hit to the balls and OH LOOK A GUN THREAD PAY ATTENTIONTOTHATOHGODOHGOD!!

In 10 years when you are asking yourself what the hell happend to your rights, remember this moment, when you were not paying attention.
 
2013-01-17 10:04:42 AM  
That film ruined soft serve ice cream and peanut butter pie for me forever.
 
2013-01-17 10:06:34 AM  

orclover: Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction. According to Morality in Media, Isaacs' sentence "sends a strong message to the porn industry and to the U.S. Department of Justice that the sexual exploitation of women by pornographers is wrong that if we dont like what your doing morally then we will EVENTUALLY put you prison for something, no matter what the law actually is."

What they did was disgusting, all of them. First amendment just took a hit to the balls and OH LOOK A GUN THREAD PAY ATTENTIONTOTHATOHGODOHGOD!!

In 10 years when you are asking yourself what the hell happend to your rights, remember this moment, when you were not paying attention.


I think I'll be remembering the Patriot act with more vitriol than this ruling.
 
2013-01-17 10:06:43 AM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-17 10:07:15 AM  

Evil Mackerel: That film ruined soft serve ice cream and peanut butter pie for me forever.


that's shiatty.
 
2013-01-17 10:21:07 AM  
Does anybody know if the Protestants, Baptists, Lex Lutherans or what have you are as lenient as the Catholics in this regard?
 
2013-01-17 10:23:34 AM  

Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.


So if I invest a million dollars into a company thinking they will use that money to improve the company and make more money but instead they take my money with me having no say and give it to a politician I hate, that is "freedom".


Seems to me you think fraud or stealing is freedom.
 
2013-01-17 10:26:06 AM  

1derful: So if an orangutan rapes a woman, it's a case of the woman abusing an orangutan? Or since the woman didn't consent, is it just mutual abuse?


All I know is that we should send a hammer-wielding plumber after that damn ape, in an attempt to rescue the woman!

www.arcade-museum.com
 
2013-01-17 10:31:43 AM  
They shouldn't have thrown him in jail, but remember, he is not in trouble for making the videos, owning or watching them. He is in trouble for distributing them. Expressing yourself is one thing, but making a business out of this kind of shiat is another. I don't want to live in a country with shiat-eating animal-farking video empires. That's for places like Brazil, where I intentionally don't live because I like the developed world.
 
2013-01-17 10:36:58 AM  

orclover: What they did was disgusting, all of them. First amendment just took a hit to the balls and OH LOOK A GUN THREAD PAY ATTENTIONTOTHATOHGODOHGOD!!

In 10 years when you are asking yourself what the hell happend to your rights, remember this moment, when you were not paying attention.


Two mistrials are a violation of his constitutional rights?
 
2013-01-17 10:39:01 AM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


The first case that I know of that involved a prison sentence for obscenity was in 1897. There may be some earlier. In any event, if imprisoning someone based on a subjective ruling of obscenity makes us a non-free society, we have been non-free since before the turn of the *previous* century, or longer.
 
2013-01-17 10:47:56 AM  
We should remember at one time a majority of people in the country would have just as offended by the suggestion that interracial marriage should be allowed as people are today by his videos.

Just because some people are offended by something does not mean it should be prohibited.
 
2013-01-17 11:07:17 AM  
So are they going to ban Salò now?
 
2013-01-17 11:08:34 AM  
Am I the only person here that enjoyed 2 Girls 1 Cup? I still fap to it sometimes.
 
2013-01-17 11:12:42 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: So are they going to ban Salò now?


I thought it was.
 
2013-01-17 11:13:07 AM  

Pincy: The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.


It is well know that dolphins will make sexual advances toward humans.
 
2013-01-17 11:14:16 AM  

Evil Mackerel: Tyrone Slothrop: So are they going to ban Salò now?

I thought it was.


not yet
 
2013-01-17 11:16:32 AM  

pdee: We should remember at one time a majority of people in the country would have just as offended by the suggestion that interracial marriage should be allowed as people are today by his videos.

Just because some people are offended by something does not mean it should be prohibited.


You can argue that there should be no bans on obscenity.  Or, you can argue that nothing is truly obscene.

What you can't argue is that some things are obscene but that the stuff this guy does isn't.
 
2013-01-17 11:16:48 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.

It is well know that dolphins will make sexual advances toward humans.


So do frat boys, but it still doesn't mean they understand what humans do.
 
2013-01-17 11:20:39 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Pincy: The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.

It is well know that dolphins will make sexual advances toward humans.


So do 14 year olds, sometimes. That doesn't make it alright to take them up on it.
 
2013-01-17 11:47:16 AM  

spman: I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.


Motor racing.
Boxing.
Football.
Soccer.
Skiing.
Heck... let's just outlaw all sports.
 
2013-01-17 12:05:18 PM  

DrPainMD: spman: I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

Motor racing.
Boxing.
Football.
Soccer.
Skiing.
Heck... let's just outlaw all sports.


We've covered this. In all of those activities the participants take precautionary measure to ensure their safety. You can't ingest feces in an uncontrolled environment without landing in the hospital where my taxpayer dollars are going to pay treat your uninsured ass for salmonella. When people get injured or die doing those things, it's as a result of an unforeseen accident which often times could not be prevented. When you get hepatitis and die from ingesting feces, it's not an accident, it's the natural result that comes about from eating feces!
 
2013-01-17 12:12:04 PM  
Have these people even heard of the internet?
 
2013-01-17 12:12:16 PM  

Bob Falfa: Looks like Grumpy Tommy Lee Jones to me.


From "Men in Black" to "Men Up Back", amirite?

/you'd be grumpy, too.
 
2013-01-17 12:22:14 PM  
What he filmed may have been disgusting, to me & to most, but it harmed no one, why should it be illegal?
 
2013-01-17 12:25:57 PM  

log_jammin: you know....in a way...you basically just said as long as we have capital punishment then pedophilia is ok.


Just as long as we don't have men and women dancing in the same room.

pkellmey: So do frat boys, but it still doesn't mean they understand what humans do.


You're implying fratboys know what they are doing? No wait, I need coffee.
 
2013-01-17 12:33:50 PM  

spman: I can't even fathom a way in which scat porn would actually be legit, how a person could even tolerate the smell, much less perform any sort of activity with it is beyond my ability to comprehend. The fact that you never read about these Brazilian women getting salmonella and hepatitis and dying leads me to believe most of it is fake. I think the government even tried to prosecute the US distributor for the 2 Girls 1 Cup movie, and even he admitted that it was all fake, since they couldn't find women who would actually agree to do it.

As for the bestiality stuff, that I don't even want to know. All I can say is you must have one HELL of a drug habit to agree to participate in that stuff.


Some people willingly participate in these things. They are strange. Such things are disturbing, but people are like this.

What about disgusting things like anal sex and cunnilingus? That stuff is nasty and stomach churning to think about, should we ban that too?
 
2013-01-17 12:34:12 PM  
Well, there are limits to anything.
 
2013-01-17 12:40:15 PM  
spman: I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. .

Mock26: [citation needed]


E. coli, which can cause death.
 
2013-01-17 12:40:45 PM  

Manfred J. Hattan: publicly endorsed


Citizens United is about secret endorsements. No one has a problem with public endorsements and reasonable donations. We have a problem with completely unlimited donations and the secrecy of said donations.
 
2013-01-17 12:46:16 PM  

borg: "Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction." WTF is this bullshiat ?. two hung (sic) juries before they found 12 self-righteous prudes.


This. Must be nice to have unlimited resources when you want to destroy someone just because they've offended your sensibilities.
 
2013-01-17 12:48:52 PM  

bluefoxicy: cunnilingus? That stuff is nasty and stomach churning


Ummm..............
 
2013-01-17 12:55:35 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: xanadian: Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.

All I can think is what does this say about our society where in order to defend freedom of speech, we have to defend this guy?


I don't disagree with you on that point. :/
 
2013-01-17 12:58:46 PM  

Loadmaster: Well, there are limits to anything.


Snuff films will still get you some jail time also
 
2013-01-17 01:12:02 PM  

spman: DrPainMD: spman: I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

Motor racing.
Boxing.
Football.
Soccer.
Skiing.
Heck... let's just outlaw all sports.

We've covered this. In all of those activities the participants take precautionary measure to ensure their safety. You can't ingest feces in an uncontrolled environment without landing in the hospital where my taxpayer dollars are going to pay treat your uninsured ass for salmonella. When people get injured or die doing those things, it's as a result of an unforeseen accident which often times could not be prevented. When you get hepatitis and die from ingesting feces, it's not an accident, it's the natural result that comes about from eating feces!


So, you retract your earlier statement?

PS. How do you know they're not using pasteurized feces?
 
2013-01-17 01:24:24 PM  

DrPainMD: spman: DrPainMD: spman: I disagree, and I'm a big first amendment supporter. To me, this is up there with something like Bum Fights, there has to be SOME limit somewhere, even if it's at the most extreme like this stuff is. When the activity goes beyond free speech, and borders on being dangerous to the participants, it has to be stopped.

Motor racing.
Boxing.
Football.
Soccer.
Skiing.
Heck... let's just outlaw all sports.

We've covered this. In all of those activities the participants take precautionary measure to ensure their safety. You can't ingest feces in an uncontrolled environment without landing in the hospital where my taxpayer dollars are going to pay treat your uninsured ass for salmonella. When people get injured or die doing those things, it's as a result of an unforeseen accident which often times could not be prevented. When you get hepatitis and die from ingesting feces, it's not an accident, it's the natural result that comes about from eating feces!

So, you retract your earlier statement?

PS. How do you know they're not using pasteurized feces?


Your taking my statement out of context. The activities you listed have the potential to be dangerous if you don't take precaution to be safe. Any activity can be dangerous if you don't take precaution to be safe. There are no precautions that can be taken to be safe when it comes to eating poo.
 
2013-01-17 01:28:28 PM  
Well, I think we can all agree this guy is no farking Lenny Bruce.

Or can we?
 
2013-01-17 01:29:50 PM  

spman: We've covered this. In all of those activities the participants take precautionary measure to ensure their safety. You can't ingest feces in an uncontrolled environment without landing in the hospital where my taxpayer dollars are going to pay treat your uninsured ass for salmonella. When people get injured or die doing those things, it's as a result of an unforeseen accident which often times could not be prevented. When you get hepatitis and die from ingesting feces, it's not an accident, it's the natural result that comes about from eating feces!


Since when does ingesting e. coli guarantee a hospital trip for a healthy adult? And why did you toss in the weasel phrase "uncontrolled environment" as if there aren't multiple safety practices that can be undertaken? And who would think sustaining an injury because you were repeatedly being punched in the head or did flips off a 60 ft. ski ramp at 75mph was "unforseeable"? And why is it okay to arbitrarily assume that none of these people have insurance or the ability to pay for medical care? And since when can't a person be tested for Hepatitis A? Or vaccinated?

For somebody who's so worried about shiat, you sure seem inclined to deal in it.
 
2013-01-17 01:31:39 PM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


"First they came for the shiat-eating pornos, but I said nothing because I didn't eat shiat in pornos..."
 
2013-01-17 01:53:19 PM  

bluefoxicy: What about disgusting things like anal sex and cunnilingus? That stuff is nasty and stomach churning to think about, should we ban that too?


What kind of prude are you?
 
2013-01-17 02:11:31 PM  

xanadian: Tat'dGreaser: I just can't seem to muster any sympathy for him.

Neither can I, to a point, but it seems to me that what's "obscene" enough to get a guilty verdict can vary from time to time. I'm not comfortable with the fact that moving the goal posts can result in someone becoming a felon. What becomes "obscene" tomorrow? Gay porn? Regular porn? Guys holding hands in the streets? All it takes is time to move public opinion one way or another. Fortunately, those goal posts have been moved in a more liberal direction over the past several years.


Probably didn't help that the Supreme Court's position on the matter is "I'll know it when I see it."
 
2013-01-17 02:18:35 PM  

BronyMedic: bluefoxicy: What about disgusting things like anal sex and cunnilingus? That stuff is nasty and stomach churning to think about, should we ban that too?

What kind of prude are you?


Allie Brosh is on extended leave but there are plenty of other sources of hyperbole on the Internet.
 
2013-01-17 02:20:35 PM  

Loren: No, the prosecutor only gets one shot (although you can face both state and federal charges--they're different crimes), taking three tries would mean that two attempts resulted in trials that couldn't complete--presumably hung juries. Once you are declared innocent that's it, they can't try you again no matter what. (Something that I actually disagree with a bit--I would say that if you are later convicted of tampering with your trial the not guilty becomes a mistrial instead and they can try you again.


Hung jury means that there was some doubt as to the guilt of the accused. If you can't be clearly proven to be guilty, then you have to be let go. retrial from hung-jury should not exist.

If the prosecutor was not able to make their case the first time convincingly, why do they keep allowing them to try it again and again. If you are allowed to retry over and over again, eventually getting to a guilty verdict, no matter the case, is inevitable because thats just how juries work ( jury selection is little more than a game of roulette). How is that fair???
 
2013-01-17 02:20:43 PM  

BronyMedic: I used to think I'd never FARK note someone in red 5 as "Beastialty Apologist".

Clearly those days are over. Sighs of the Apocalypse, man.


Then you really don't want to know what you're FARK noted as!
/cyan 3
 
2013-01-17 02:46:46 PM  
Evidence presented at trial established that beginning in or about 1999 and continuing until at least 2011, Isaacs, doing business under the name LA. Media, operated numerous websites, through which he advertised and sold obscene videos that he acquired from other people. The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste

This is an outrage! How DARE they put him in jail just for doing something they don't like. I don't like scat either, so I don't do it or watch it. But unless he held a gun to someone's head to force them to do it or something jail is completely out of line here, in a free society.

and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Oh, well... uhhhhh... That's totally different then. In that case I guess he really *should* be going to jail then. Nevermind.
 
2013-01-17 03:03:21 PM  

Loadmaster: spman: I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. .

Mock26: [citation needed]

E. coli, which can cause death.


chesus christ, people I already said upthread that it wasnt true. It isn't . I can't speak for a goddamned four course meal, but I know lots of girls that have taken a little spunky A2M lots of times...LOTS of times with no adverse side effects. So...whatever. LOL "just come in contact with human waste..." lmao
 
2013-01-17 03:06:18 PM  
Put him in the cell with the Girls Gone Wild guy. I am sure they have a lot to talk about.
 
2013-01-17 03:16:42 PM  
More mysterious, vague "crimes" the Fed can charge anybody with.
 
2013-01-17 03:20:51 PM  
Of course the First Amendment died long ago, but today I'm embarrassed to call myself an American. It's bad enough that movies have been censored for almost a century, but it's a quantum leap from censorship to prison sentences handed out to filmmakers who produce movies that we find revolting. Since when is it a crime to offend, and since when has there been a right not to be offended?

On the other hand, am I being hypocritical if I still believe in prison sentences for people who make and distribute kiddy-porn?
 
2013-01-17 03:22:58 PM  

EVERYBODY PANIC: Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."


Anyone who thinks that freedom is a binary proposition, and not a spectrum has not in any way shape or form considered any "implications". They just want a bumper sticker slogan. I will direct you back to Socrates, in particular the Gorgias dialog as a starting point for showing that your simplistic definitions were utterly demolished over 2000 years ago.
 
2013-01-17 03:29:09 PM  

Madbassist1: Loadmaster: spman: I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. .

Mock26: [citation needed]

E. coli, which can cause death.

chesus christ, people I already said upthread that it wasnt true. It isn't . I can't speak for a goddamned four course meal, but I know lots of girls that have taken a little spunky A2M lots of times...LOTS of times with no adverse side effects. So...whatever. LOL "just come in contact with human waste..." lmao


Ingesting the e.coli from your own feces isn't likely to cause you any real problems, since, well, it came out of you to start with, so you're already loaded with it! It's only potentially problematic when you ingest someone else's strain of e.coli, though it probably will only be an issue if they're sick themselves due to being infected with a harmful strain... I think it's more likely to cause harm if it's feces from another species entirely, which may be adjusted to living with strains that are perfectly harmless to them but potentially harmful to us...

I'd think the biggest risk regarding porn activities combined with feces would be possible urinary tract infections...

/What a surreal thread this is...
 
2013-01-17 03:32:16 PM  

PirateKing: "I don't want to be Harriet TubMAN... change it to Tubgirl!"


One of many 30 Rock jokes that is funny because of a current Internet meme, but won't work as well in syndication 10 years from now.

/the entire Simpsons family stands up and dances, singing "I feel like Chicken Tonight..."
 
2013-01-17 03:44:44 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Manfred J. Hattan: publicly endorsed

Citizens United is about secret endorsements. No one has a problem with public endorsements and reasonable donations. We have a problem with completely unlimited donations and the secrecy of said donations.


See, you're merely one of the stupid ones, not the anti-freedom ones. The only places where Citizens addressed any disclosure provisions at all, it upheld them. It also left undisturbed the ban on direct contributions by non-natural persons to candidates.
 
2013-01-17 04:13:58 PM  
The conservative in me says let degenerates be degenerates.
 
2013-01-17 05:10:00 PM  
Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction.

This is disturbing.

Also: SWAP.avi
 
2013-01-17 05:10:53 PM  

BronyMedic: orclover: What they did was disgusting, all of them. First amendment just took a hit to the balls and OH LOOK A GUN THREAD PAY ATTENTIONTOTHATOHGODOHGOD!!

In 10 years when you are asking yourself what the hell happend to your rights, remember this moment, when you were not paying attention.

Two mistrials are a violation of his constitutional rights?


It's possible. I don't have the cash to pay for one trial right now, but I might be able to take a loan.

Second trial, my lawyer would abandon my case since I won't be able to pay. Job is gone due to missed work.

Third trial? I'm certainly bankrupt by this point. Meanwhile the prosecutor is being paid to do this.
 
2013-01-17 05:11:20 PM  
Maybe they were doing medical research?

Fecal matter transplant cures diarrhea
 
2013-01-17 05:13:22 PM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.


No, that happened when Max Hardcore went to jail.
 
2013-01-17 05:20:58 PM  

BronyMedic: bluefoxicy: What about disgusting things like anal sex and cunnilingus? That stuff is nasty and stomach churning to think about, should we ban that too?

What kind of prude are you?


That's the point. Obscenity is undefined until conviction or acquittal occurs.

Obscenity means if you get a jury of ignorant homophobes, anal sex magically becomes obscene. One guy could cause a hung jury and the prosecutor gets to try again.
 
2013-01-17 05:26:02 PM  

thelordofcheese: No, that happened when Max Hardcore went to jail.


If Max Hardcore was in jail, then how did he still make public appearances as "The Reverend Fred Phelps"?
 
2013-01-17 06:12:02 PM  
a57.foxnews.com  images.tvrage.com
 
2013-01-17 06:21:47 PM  

kim jong-un: BronyMedic: orclover: What they did was disgusting, all of them. First amendment just took a hit to the balls and OH LOOK A GUN THREAD PAY ATTENTIONTOTHATOHGODOHGOD!!

In 10 years when you are asking yourself what the hell happend to your rights, remember this moment, when you were not paying attention.

Two mistrials are a violation of his constitutional rights?

It's possible. I don't have the cash to pay for one trial right now, but I might be able to take a loan.

Second trial, my lawyer would abandon my case since I won't be able to pay. Job is gone due to missed work.

Third trial? I'm certainly bankrupt by this point. Meanwhile the prosecutor is being paid to do this.


Here is an example of what happens when you don't have cash to fight the unlimited resources of the prosecutor:

Lawyer quits Zumba-Prostitute case 1 week before trial because client can't pay.
 
2013-01-17 06:27:14 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Pincy: The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.

It is well know that dolphins will make sexual advances toward humans.


So you're telling me these videos were filmed underwater?
 
2013-01-17 06:38:07 PM  
Lots of animal farkers on Fark, apparently.
 
2013-01-17 06:40:42 PM  

kim jong-un: Obscenity means if you get a jury of ignorant homophobes, anal sex magically becomes obscene. One guy could cause a hung jury and the prosecutor gets to try again.


One thing I've noticed is that by the time you're entering the 3rd trial for a single offense/incident, the issue at stake is generally muddy enough that you shouldn't be trying in the first place.

Stuff like this, the gentleman using faked prescriptions to treat a real pain problem(and convicted as a dealer due to the sheer amount!), etc...
 
2013-01-17 06:52:19 PM  
Courtesy of social conservatism.
 
2013-01-17 07:46:15 PM  

Raging Whore Moans: dammit, i just viewed a Reason article.


Let me guess; a frequent HuffPo reader. Or a Hannity fan. Either one applies.
 
2013-01-17 07:53:30 PM  

James F. Campbell: EVERYBODY PANIC: As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.


Your new-fangled idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.
 
2013-01-17 08:00:04 PM  

Tanthalas39: Raging Whore Moans: dammit, i just viewed a Reason article.

Let me guess; a frequent HuffPo reader. Or a Hannity fan. Either one applies.


www.roflcat.com
 
2013-01-17 08:12:26 PM  

Raging Whore Moans: Tanthalas39: Raging Whore Moans: dammit, i just viewed a Reason article.

Let me guess; a frequent HuffPo reader. Or a Hannity fan. Either one applies.

[www.roflcat.com image 600x457]


Someday, young grasshopper, you'll learn. In the meantime, concentrate more on education, logical thinking skills, and applications of such learnings, rather than being internet cool with a tired meme.
 
2013-01-17 09:00:07 PM  

GranoblasticMan: Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

[i16.photobucket.com image 720x400]


i just realized- if you removed those ears, winnie the pooh looks suspiciously like charles barkley.
 
2013-01-17 09:26:09 PM  

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became are even less free of a society with this decision.

 
2013-01-17 09:35:30 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?



I was once in a crowded theater and a fire occurred but nobody knew what to say.

/csb
 
2013-01-17 09:47:34 PM  

Wulfman: Uchiha_Cycliste: What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?


I was once in a crowded theater and a fire occurred but nobody knew what to say.

/csb


Seriously? Heinous, yet strangely and inappropriately hilarious.
\CSB
 
2013-01-17 09:48:51 PM  

log_jammin: dookdookdook: Does CNN do a lot of reports about the STD infection rates of South American fetish porn skanks?

not unless someone tweets it.


Bah ya beat me to it.
 
2013-01-17 10:14:28 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Rockstone: Uchiha_Cycliste: pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.

Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.

Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.

You must have talked to a pre-vatican II priest, because that's not Catholic Teaching. Not at all. Last Easter Mass we had someone who converted from Islam to Catholicism. She said she was worried about whether her mother would enter heaven, and Father told her that "yes, of course she is in heaven". Good works are more important than faith in many cases. You do not need to be religious to enter heaven, according to Church Doctrine.

That's pretty awesome. And not to be a prick, but can you provide some citation? I've always been told (as I said) that the sacraments were necessary for salvation.
Thank you for correcting my misconceptions, on an unrelated not I really wish the church had dealt with the sexual abuse issues differently. Even considering my waning belief in a higher power, sometimes I miss being part of the Church, but I can't in good conscience support that organization.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church has some information about that:
Link

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." CCC 847

CCC 846 (which states that Salvation is only possible through the Church) can be interpreted differently in light of CCC 847. It depends upon what your definition of "knowing" is. Is it willful disobedience? The Church has always taught that unless a sin is intentional, grave, and with full knowledge, it doesn't destroy salvation. My interpretation of CCC 846 is that it would only apply to someone who has full knowledge about the Church, has no reason to doubt, and still is not a part, basically, willful and total rejection despite knowing better (basically, they left maliciously)

As you mention with the sex scandals, I'm sure that someone who were to leave the Church because of that wouldn't be punished eternally for it, since they may now be filled with doubt, and likely aren't leaving maliciously. It helps to know that the number of priests who committed those crimes is very small, 0.01% of the whole population of priests.

I've always been told, at least my Church has told me, that as long as someone truly believes that what they believe to be correct, they may obtain salvation. And I feel purgatory becomes one of the most important things here, since it means anyone could still enter heaven.

Of course, the Church doesn't claim to know who is and who isn't in heaven (other than the Saints).

/ On another note, how did this topic start getting discussed in this thread? Only on Fark could that happen. Only on Fark could I reference the CCC in a thread like this...
 
2013-01-17 10:17:20 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I really wish the church had dealt with the sexual abuse issues differently


Yes, it should have. But it wasn't the global Churches at fault, it was individual parishes and diocese. And alot of it was just surprise. Nothing like that had ever happened before. When you think about it, schools were ill prepared to handle similar events until they started happening as well.
 
2013-01-17 10:42:49 PM  

Rockstone: / On another note, how did this topic start getting discussed in this thread? Only on Fark could that happen. Only on Fark could I reference the CCC in a thread like this...


Let me think for a second... I went from mentioning ye old "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" to saying that while aggravating it shouldn't be surprising and in the process of elaborating spoke of our relatively puritanical society and blaming some of the limits of obscenity of the Dominionists and fundamentalists.

I was asked if I though we'd have a more or less Jesusy acting people if Romney was elected.

Someone else mentioned that while they may have beliefs stemming from their religious views they would never try to legislate based on those views. To which I commended that that poster was a much better person than practically all the God botherers. We discussed what I meant by God botherer. then is snowballed into a discussion of personal views on religion and theology in general.

I appreciate that you took the time to throw up the relevant parts of these Papal edicts, we had discussed them and we decided my misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine stemmed from the discussions I had had with older priests who were not privy to these new fangled and awesome changes.
 
2013-01-17 10:51:53 PM  

Rockstone: Uchiha_Cycliste: I really wish the church had dealt with the sexual abuse issues differently

Yes, it should have. But it wasn't the global Churches at fault, it was individual parishes and diocese. And alot of it was just surprise. Nothing like that had ever happened before. When you think about it, schools were ill prepared to handle similar events until they started happening as well.


While the individual abuses were on a more local level, it's my understanding that the awareness that priests were committing these acts and being transferred out of their diocese (only to offend again) instead of being dealt with in a more permanent, punitive, or even judicial manner went pretty high up. I've even heard that Ratzinger may have been aware of what was happening and possibly was even behind covering up these occurrences instead of neutralizing the guilty parties and ensuring that any priest caught would never have another opportunity to offend again.

There seemed to be a systemic corruption and willingness to shuffle around very bad people instead of effectively taking action to stop and prevent abuses. It makes it very hard to support the organization.

Is your understanding of the depth of organizational complicity different from mine?
 
2013-01-18 08:11:22 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Rockstone: / On another note, how did this topic start getting discussed in this thread? Only on Fark could that happen. Only on Fark could I reference the CCC in a thread like this...

Let me think for a second... I went from mentioning ye old "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" to saying that while aggravating it shouldn't be surprising and in the process of elaborating spoke of our relatively puritanical society and blaming some of the limits of obscenity of the Dominionists and fundamentalists.

I was asked if I though we'd have a more or less Jesusy acting people if Romney was elected.

Someone else mentioned that while they may have beliefs stemming from their religious views they would never try to legislate based on those views. To which I commended that that poster was a much better person than practically all the God botherers. We discussed what I meant by God botherer. then is snowballed into a discussion of personal views on religion and theology in general.

I appreciate that you took the time to throw up the relevant parts of these Papal edicts, we had discussed them and we decided my misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine stemmed from the discussions I had had with older priests who were not privy to these new fangled and awesome changes.


Conversrations go off course very quickly, heh. But yeah, older priests, mostly those who were priests before Vatican II are more likely to have those misunderstandings. On the other hand, at my parish, the priest is in his 70s and he's one of the most liberal people I know. He did a whole homily on how "all are welcome, whether they are rich or poor, gay or straight, married or divorced, etc".

Uchiha_Cycliste: Is your understanding of the depth of organizational complicity different from mine?


It might be. I don't really know of the extend of the abuses. I know that the diocese where I live probably would have excommunicated priests who comitted the sexual abuses (though I hope the diocese around here never has to do that). I do agree with you that the priets should have been sent to an eclassical court and excommunicated. I'm not sure why they were not especially when the evidence quickly stacked against them. I do not think the intent was malicious. Now the Church does have protocols for handling such abuses. Part of the way I look at it too is like this: I'm an American, despite the cover ups and abuses by the federal government towards GITMO detainees and other prisoners of war. The actions of a small number of individuals in my government does not speak for me. Same with the Church. The actions of a small number of individuals in my Church does not speak for the Church as a whole.

That doesn't absolve the Church of responsibility of course, and I hope I will see an annoncement 'ex cathedra' warning that priests who have comitted these abuses will immediately be defrocked and excommunicated.
 
2013-01-18 12:10:06 PM  

cryinoutloud: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

He's a nasty freak, so I don't give a fark. You can find people depraved or desperate enough to do anything. It still doesn't mean that you aren't preying on them. If he's an "artist" and this free expression of ideas means so much to him, how come he isn't making movies of himself eating shiat and farking animals?

Yeah, freedom, blah blah blah. fark him and fark all you perverts who enjoy looking at stuff like this. There's something wrong with you.


Yeah, but you know how this site operates. Farkers always stay true to their school, even if, as in this case, they instinctively know something is wrong and find it repugnant.
 
2013-01-18 03:17:13 PM  
spman
We've covered this. In all of those activities the participants take precautionary measure to ensure their safety. You can't ingest feces in an uncontrolled environment without landing in the hospital where my taxpayer dollars are going to pay treat your uninsured ass for salmonella. When people get injured or die doing those things, it's as a result of an unforeseen accident which often times could not be prevented. When you get hepatitis and die from ingesting feces, it's not an accident, it's the natural result that comes about from eating feces!

Yeah we "covered" this - I debunked your "dangerous feces" BS - and you just keep on marching with it. You must really enjoy your ignorance. If fecal matter is so damn dangerous - why is there a medical procedure that involves consuming the feces of a healthy person(to restore a balance of good bacteria and fight infections of bad bacteria)? Those doctors are clearly monsters...

As for precautions, that is easy. Have the actors submit a stool sample prior to filming - to check for infections/harmful microbes. Feces cannot pass along a bacteria that was not present already in the intestines of the person from whom it came. That is what those doctors do before the fecal transplant. Even then this can only be necessary in cases where an actor is to consume another person's feces. Might as well check for STDs while they are there - which I assume is standard practice.

Of course if there where harmful bacteria on the floor/grass etc, and the poop fell onto that... well obviously you could get an infections much the same as if you licked the ground directly. But a person will not get sick from eating their own fresh feces. They would only ingest bacteria that are already present in abundance anyhow. By abundance, I mean bacteria numbering in the trillions. The rest of the feces is simply partially digested food.

As for the rest of you talking about how screwed up someone must be to enjoy this - screw you. It's called a fetish and most people have some sort of sexual abnormality such as this. I'm sure every one of the people casting their judgement has SOMETHING on their computer that other people would look down upon you for(if not call it OBSCENE). But hey - MY paraphilia is different! Everyone is "normal" until you get to know them.

First they came for the furries, but I do not yif so I said nothing.
Then they came for the traps, but I am not a homo in denial so I said nothing
They came next for the feet lovers(you certainly can get an infection from this), and I said nothing because I don't care about feet.
They they came for me, and from by cold dead hands can they have my scat.
 
2013-01-18 03:19:27 PM  
Damn I should have previewed that ^^^ Not supposed to be all bold and you can't really tell where quoting him ends an I begin.
 
2013-01-18 05:18:56 PM  

bk3k:
First they came for the furries, but I do not yif so I said nothing.
Then they came for the traps, but I am not a homo in denial so I said nothing
They came next for the feet lovers(you certainly can get an infection from this), and I said nothing because I don't care about feet.
They they came for me, and from by cold dead hands can they have my scat.



They sure came a lot.

[i_came.jpg]
 
Displayed 416 of 416 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report