Scented Nectar Wrote:You are saying that eating and breathing, which does to oneself, is comparable to the great emotional/physical harm done to another person against their will? WTF? Are you a sociopath with no empathy? Tell me you are joking please.
Yes, it is quite comparable. Observe these things that can hurt you when you are eating:
You can choke and die from eating.
You can get morbidly fat from eating.
You can suffer malnutrition from eating.
You can eat Big Al's sandwich and be killed as a result of having done so.
You can bring diseases into your body from eating.
The 'consistency' of your shit is affected by what you eat
(and some forms of what can happen to it might be declared 'vile' 
).
Let us not also forget that you can feed someone else food and they might choke and die from it.
They can get morbidly fat from eating it.
They can become malnutrated from it.
You can feed them Big Al's sandwich and frame them leading Big Al to kill them.
You can give them diseases by feeding them.
You can affect the consistency of their shit.
And the breathing list is so huge one questions the need to bring up comparable examples v_v I think I could do more with drinking than eating too... but then... maybe not
I have no idea what a 'sociopath' (as you are using it) is... but I certainly have empathy. A great deal of it in fact. More than most people I should think, but I know only so many
And yet, noting all of that: I am not joking when I suggest that things should not be considered "vile" solely because they can hurt you. In fact... I was rather under the impression that declaring something 'vile' was a way to suggest that it makes you "sick to your stomach", "disgusted", "queasy", etc. Now... sometimes people attribute 'vileness' to a person, so as to imply that the person (or the person's actions) "make them sick"
Quote:That's nice of you. It's a good thing that you can hold your victim down with one hand, while simultaneously using the other hand to both squeeze the tip of the condom (so no air bubble forms in the semen receptacle part) and roll it down your dick at the same time.
Indeed, isn't it? I'm so nice.
But why would you need to hold down this victim with your hands at all? What do you think ropes, handcuffs, gags, and their ilk are for? Further... I do not think it is not so difficult to do as you seem to think it is. If you recall: they can usually knock us out, or otherwise overpower us. Of course... this all assumes they would have and use a condom in the first place.
Also, you might note that I said
"if I wanted to rape someone (and was a man) and did not want to give them my AIDS: I would sure as hell put a condom on". Perhaps it would be more accurate still to state
"and actively wished to avoid giving them AIDS".
Saerules Wrote:Who is to decide what someone deserves or does not?
Scented Nectar Wrote:People with empathy. They vote and stuff, then the world gets progressively more modern, secular, and happy.
'People with empathy'...... who are they? Do not you know how selective empathy
(the understanding of another and ability to "share" their emotions, pains, pleasures with them) is? A small group of buddies almost certainly has a great deal more empathy towards each other than they do for a larger society that they do not know so well. See: empathy is not a thing that a person has... it is the strength of the emotional bond a person has with a thing
(usually living, though I suppose if an unliving thing has emotions, pains, and pleasures it might also count...)
You also seem to suggest that some group of individuals somehow decides what people deserve and do not... but no: they usually compromise with each other to find a 'decent moral fit' for the majority. It is only individuals who decide what is deserved and also not... and further: while they may share an ideal of what is deserved... all concepts remain firmly within an individual. We aren't a hive mind... at least not yet.
Quote:Different tastes which are nonharmful are very different from different tastes which are harmful. You seem to be missing the ability to recognize harm and why causing pain is a bad thing.
Are not. Observe:
Eating A.
Eating B.
A = Cherries.
B = Ground glass.
Both are eating. Granted: eating one is quite likely to harm you more than the other... but that is not to reflect the action itself.
You seem to be missing the fact that whilst tastes might be different: they are tastes nonetheless. Now... I might have a real taste for ice cream... but also be diabetic and not eat it for my health's sake. It is not having a taste for a thing that dictates wether the action is done: that would be your decision to eat it
(or absence of a decision to not eat it).
See: I might have a real attraction to rape... but also not want to do so because of not wanting to hurt another person like that. There is this wonderful thing for me if I happen to have internet: rape porn! And I will never have to rape a single soul to get a taste of how it feels
(assuming I am empathetic enough towards the rapist on screen )
Not that it is necessarily an incorrect argument 
