A real Moral vs a fake Moral

How much can an idiotic bigot defend himself against an individual and other individuals for their freedom?

Apparently judging by it's idiotic title Funnel put out, I assume he thinks that freedom is morally wrong, and that judgement and other is the "real" moral.

Truth be told, the only Moral is not violating someone's will.

Request used.

===========================

Well I agree with the main text above. I am guessing Funnel does not believe in the Golden Rule because he believes in laws and such that violates another will (e.g. Polygamy is Freedom, making it illegal violates Freedom, therefor; violates the Golden Rule.)

http://funnelvortex.deviantart.com/journal/wwwarea-No-Morals-571476506

Note: Of course, within quote spacing: The deeper quote spacing is his, the main quote spacing without the bold is mine and the bold messages in the quote spacing is his again (But recent).
Note again: Some of my own quotes he posted within the quotes pacing may have some bold stuff too.
Also, the deeper quote spacing with bold words are most likely Funnel's too.

 Again, the idiotically won't stop with these people.
But I like to say to all, that if you don't right anything back against trolls and cyberbullies like Channel or Funnel, that doesn't mean you lost.
No matter how delusional it comes to their minds claiming their trash has "owned" the victim (e.g. 'wwwarea')


Funny how wwwarea brings Channel into this despite the fact this journal is for me specifically.

He kinda connects now due to this one being more connected before.. And hey, remember the whole stupid Sonic.EXE thing that didn't connect..?

 Request Used

You are not fooling anyone. This is your blog.

USED TO BE. I mean, this wasn't my account originally. That's why you see those fucking requests because of a talk.

Of course, while REM already lost and can't debunk me (Proven why) and the blind cyberbullies including LMJ (who also supports the guilt of slander) continue to be corrupted as usual, the bigot (can't tolerate other people's personal views with prejudice) FunnelDelusion continues to act as disrespectful, and idiotic as usual.

funnelvortex.deviantart.com/jo…

Nope. Just telling it how it is.

 "Because I said so!" <You

A classic internet troll who pretends his life counts and others don't.. and unaware of the fact that I don't always stay in this boring house.

Do you go to school or have a good job? Did not think so.

Again, you seem to tell others how to live and again, you act like I always never even touch my front door nob.
If you keep making stuff up out of assumption then I will just keep saying the same thing to you then.

You don't get it. It's explaining that the more this blog is monitored by stalkers like you, the more views this blog is going to get. Keep them up!
I thought we already went through this (The request thing).

Channel explained it for me.

Let me guess, by showing those snapshots about 'This is wwwarea', and I thought I already explained to him about that?

There is questioning popular belief based on a solid basis, and then there is questioning a popular belief just for the sake of questioning a popular belief with no other goal other than just trying to be some big rebel.

No their isn't. Everyone has a reason and I already told you, I do this for the sake of promoting more possibilities, against discrimination with actual reasoning, etc.

You mean "more possibilities" as in just what corresponds with your worldview, right?

 Maybe my world view can sometimes promote it.
Every activist, idealist, etc. has a world view that has promoted freedom.
And see you whine and complain about someone who believes in change is pretty sad.

And you need to be aware that you are not right about me.. At all.
Example: You are not right about me being "delusional" because you don't have proof that 'my claims' are 100% wrong.

There may be some shred of truth but it is hard to tell since you tend to morph it so much.

I never 'morphed' it.
And you failed to prove any of you claims.

I don't know if you did it too, but I think I was inspired by REM who failed to argue the comparisons and posted a *drinks* thing because I used a word to compare.
Though on my side, I actually argue why you were wrong too.

So you are going to take out your rage for Channel on a journal intended for me? 

Hey I'm just saying. You are often on his side for no good reason.

Alright. When you end up facing a judge and jury in court, tell them what you just said. They will not give a fuck because what the judge and jury thinks of you will be what determines whether you are guilty or not. If your peers are displeased with you, then you most likely are guilty.

Umm they should follow the laws, and not depend on feeling.

People are not robots. Humans are emotional beings, and no matter what kind of situation you are in it is going to prompt an emotional response. Being in the jury during a trial for a murderer is no exception. If the evidence is stacked against him and you know he did it, then wouldn't you want his ass thrown in jail for the rest of his days? And most of the time, those who judge DO follow the law, they take an oath and it is required to be honest in a court situation. The result is still the same, your peers judge you, you are judged based on society's standards, and you will be sentenced by your peers based on what they think is right.

 Sometimes humans act like robots. Emotional beings is NOT an excuse to have 'emotion' take over logic. It's disgusting.
Emotional beliefs has led to worse situations in several ways. And all the hate that no longer exist these days much is connected with the same thing. Face it. I'll admit, not ALL emotion reactions are bad though. But stuff that censors science, make things taboo, etc. No. Just no.
Some laws are not morally right though. Some always directly violate it to fight for certain rights. I once heard a quote about that sort of or is.

And those people that think is "right" or "wrong" are not always right.

I admit some laws are unconstitutionally passed based off feeling and I think people should abolish them.

And a lot of them HAVE been abolished. I think you are thinking too far behind everyone else if you think a lot of the rights-infringing laws are still in place. Most laws violating human rights have been abolished by now in first world countries. Get with the times.

There is still laws today based off unfair emotional discrimination (E.g. Polygamy laws)
If the future really do gets more perfect, then I'll say you are jumping too far beyond our current times.

Also, I am not guilty for what I defend with my opinion. It's not against the law to believe in change.

It is a free country. There is no law regulating stupidity, but if you are going to say stupid things people will say things back.

The only stupid things that's being said is words (in certain orders) out of your mouth.
And if you say shitty things about people not you, expect people to say something back.
Yet, some speech is banned in some places.

I do not know anyone who is annoyed by kissing in movies unless it is poorly-written.

Asexuals, people like me, heterosexuals in some situations, homosexuals in some situations, and maybe more.

If it bothers you then most things must bother you.

No. Just kissing or any other common stuff.
If Vore bothers you, then most things must bother you then.

Oh and people who just wants to see action.

So you like your movies to just be all mindless action without any sense of story, bonding between characters, or emotional elements what-so-ever? You must have a great taste in movies.

You can have a story without the need to bonding. A lot. And I've seen stories that didn't have that and was far better without them to me. I have a sense of taste.
Yet, some emotional things are OK, as long if it's not bonding, or any other boring love stories.
Another example: Titanic is something I loved, probably because it wasn't JUST a love story. It had action, major events, etc. and the emotional part was more fair. Though, I was only disgusted by kissing.

No. It's you. Sometimes though I may NEED to say some stuff that is the same because they still argue further than your repeating arguments or other styles that still couldn't debunk it.
Such as proving a law to you that you KEEP fucking denying.

So you are right by default.

Well I mean yes, but so are you. At least I repeat stuff that's still further than your arguments.

And Alpha and Omega had a lot of quality with the graphics, the smooth animation, and some effects.

Wait, what? Okay, the original movie's animation wasn't too bad. But the animation in the sequels, on the other hand, got even worse looking with each film.

I admit, the animation isn't as good as the first movie, but some of those sequels still offer some value to plenty of people. Plus, I wasn't talking about the sequels...

A creative story as wolves, and new ways that never happened.

It is a Romeo & Juliette story.

Actually it's not. If it was, the characters wouldn't be wolves, the love story would of been 100% the same (But it's not because no one dies, some ways go different, etc.). It's like you are calling it that JUST because of 'forbidden love'.. If so, then everything is the same.
 Oh and certain other events (e.g. Lilly and Garth) was new.

Unique designs rather than generic realism wolves.

And they happen to be all emo-ish.

Same with Sonic then.
But in all seriousness, they look great and I will say that. It's unique, etc. And you making an immature 'emo' joke that isn't even matching doesn't change that.
*New design* You: "No, I don't like new creative 'change'! They look different!"

Yes I argued a lot because I think it's fair to say this in a critique or at least showing valuable parts.

Pretty good.
If you say it's not, then I will say your reasoning is not good either then.

So you will discredit me just for not liking Alpha & Omega? 

No. It's the fact that you argued that it 'sucks' then say your stuff didn't.. I don't like Sonic, if you get to argue your personal opinion as an argument, then I may do so back.

I am not hating you for liking Alpha and Omega. I just said I thought the picture was creepy.

Said the guy who said the movie was bad, etc. under some part involving that.

Yes, I said the movie was bad. I did not say you were bad for liking it!

So you admit it. And no, but you made up an arguable claim that I didn't ask for. You just forced your hatred as a "fact" over someone who likes it, and yet, your stuff was arguable.
So thanks for admitting you lied.

Yet, you didn't need to say that (The "creepy" thing), you could of kept that to yourself.

What? All I said is that I found it creepy. Just my personal opinion. Some people find Sonic creepy and you think I am complaining?

You can find it creepy personality, but you really didn't need to say that in a place that wasn't asking you.
It's like if someone went to your Sonic art and just said "Your sonic OC is creepy to me!"

Just like anything. If you know you are not 100% sure, then don't act like you are 100% sure.

Well I am pretty damn close to 100%

I think I remember thinking I was right because I felt so sure, but alas, I was wrong in the end.
It's still assumption and could lead to slander if you keep assuming.

 What?
A past is a past. I am already over the Sonic.EXE thing and you still bring it up and try to connect to it.

Because you absolutely lost your shit over it, despite the fact you claim to hate Sonic.

Again, you are bringing up something that happened in the past disconnected between me and you on a topic that has nothing to do with it.
And me saying I hate sonic does not connect to that still. That's like saying every fight connects because it's on DA. <Because old fights happened on it too.

 Again, when I say that some stuff from 'Tumblr' is right that doesn't mean I am saying everyone there is right. It's like you forgot what I said on some parts.

What originating from Tumblr is right?

Stuff like "Be yourself", "Not all otherkins hurt people", "Keep drama out of forums", "Equality for all", etc.
Stop defending your stereotyping.

And where is the proof actually? Just because ONE otherkin or ONE misanthrope did that, doesn't mean I am the same (And I don't think I am exactly an Otherkin). Discriminating someone based off what they like, doesn't make you any better than someone who bullies someone for drawing a character in a certain way.

A shit ton of them do it.

Bullshit. Perhaps you are misunderstanding people, or you idiotically for example think people attack others for disliking something when all they did was disagree about some claims.

I need to study for your first claim.
But you DO advocate bullying at least.
And you ALSO advocate slander.

If I had to say who belongs in the list of bad otherkinds, misanthropics, etc. you are one of the bad sonic fans (I couldn't think of something in general, sorry) who advocates bullying, (E.g. mock, and some other) and you promote slander.

I knew you would turn it around on me anyways.

 Because it's true.

Nah, DA is half Sonic art so I have no reason to move to Tumblr from DA just to be with other Sonic artists. I haven't drawn Sonic in a long time, actually.

And DA is half fighting (Honestly...)

More like the entire Internet!

Well the thing is DA is supposed to be an art site and not all places online has them.

And neither do I have a reason to move there, since it has a lot of stuff I like too.

You have every reason to move there, it is full of people like yourself.

 Not it's not. Or maybe a lot of people you think is "bad" there isn't really bad people.
Plus, DA has a lot of cool people too, and you saying I don't belong here is a bunch of shit.
Maybe you belong to Tumblr, and maybe even 4chan.
And also on here, I bet you want many activists, and many other people who believe change for more freedom to go there. How rude of you.

At least I am rational and behave reasonable with mine. 

 No you don't. You attack other people for having different spiritual beliefs than you.

So I should not call out people for thinking Sonic is real? Sonic is hardly spiritual. 

And should I not call out a Christian who hates gays just because of his spiritual belief? You can have your spiritual belief, but I will call them out when it infringes upon their fellow man. 

No you shouldn't. Because if they want to believe he's reason in connection to a bunch of theories, then they have the right to. If the multiverse theory is true, then yes he's real. If the spiritual world exist, then yes he does. What I mean is that people ARE allowed to create these possibilities such as the spiritual world, and that's a legit thing under the theory. You just can't respect that and you seem to think you know everything about the spiritual world, but you DON'T.
All you are doing is calling people out for believing in something that may be possible. You call them out because they hold a more open opinion than yours and you act like you know everything, but you don't.

That Christian attacks others, maybe that's different? But I would call people like you out considering you are no different than that type of Christian.
Well believing in Sonic doesn't infringe upon a real man. But your stuff does exactly what that example Christian does.

Plus, I am reasonable with mine too with the evidence you always claim to be "pseudoscience" just because you want to.
I'll say your spiritual beliefs are 'pseudoscience' because I said so then.

You believe that you can turn into a cat if you think hard enough, not on the astral plane or something like that, but you think you can morph into a cat in the real world! Oh yeah, and you think you can turn into your Sonic fancharacter when you die! 
Oh yeah, you think Sonic is REAL!

When did I say that? I mean, our bodies are slowly made by our own genes, if that's what you mean. And I believe in the after life, you can, and I was mainly talking about the astral plane, or spiritual world (Same thing?)
I don't want to turn into one, but for someone who does, yes it's possible.
"I think that's bad because I somehow know everything about the spiritual world and afterlife!" <Funnel

Yes according to the things you refuse to even fucking get.
How do you know he's 'not' real? What about the afterlife you don't know, what about all the universe you don't know, what about anything else you don't know. 
The way you 'bring them out' as "bad" shows that you act like you do know, but you don't. So that's why you are clearly a bigot and a egoist moron.

Adults swear all the time.

There is a difference between casually swearing and being some kid on Xbox Live.

 Not true. Adults swear when they are in stress sometimes, and other annoying situations. This is natural.

Spamming memes, I know someone who keeps spamming immature Death Battles and I know a someone (Channel) who sometimes post memes.

Occasionally posting memes =/= spamming them.

Pretty sure it's the same thing.

It really depends on how people disagree.
You can disagree, but if you go out with it, this is where it all depends.
Disagreeing is no excuse to bully those (e.g.) for their fetishes.

I do not bully someone just for having a fetish. I may critique someone for being clearly obsessed with their fetish, but I never bully them.

If you do that, that's bullying. Critiquing is about improving something for what it is.
Your so-called "critique" is NOT a critique.



Also, a 'fetish' is part of their identity. If they express it in a way common people do, that's not obsessed.

I did not "censor" anyone. I was trying to make you shut up, because you would not shut up throwing a huge fit over something you don't even care about!

"I didn't censor you! *Censors/Hides Comment*" <You

Maybe because your comments were taking up a crazy amount of space, and also were irrelevant to the topic and were just mindless bitching about things that had nothing to do with my stamp? 

Again, censorship.
When someone argues you, it may have a lot of text. Deal with that.
If someone wants to see other comments, they still can.
And it wasn't 'irrelevant'.

All I did was maturely disagreed and explained why, then you censored me.

Just because I don't have that, doesn't mean I have a worse job.

Then what IS your job?

I am NOT telling. Because of shitty people like you, stalking me a lot, I don't want my personal activity known online.

No, you are pressuring people to change (It's basically the same as forcing). That's another form of bullying.
It's like if you complained at me for not personally liking Sonic, and I avoided it, then you made people attack me for it, and acted like I was "bad" for that, then that's kind of forcing. No, I'm not saying you did that, but it's an example.

Pressuring people to change doesn't work. You can influence someone, but not force them.

Influencing is far different than what you do.
The way you do, is force. And yet, didn't you admit that you so-called 'peer PRESSURE'?

And no, I'm not forcing myself to change. That is literally insanely non-sense.
How far can victim blaming get?

So I say that the only one who can change you is yourself, and that is victim blaming? And somehow the belief that whatever bad thing happens to you is because your thoughts create reality is not victim blaming in the slightest?

I think I said that because of the past crap you and some other people do. And I thought your argument was connected to that at the same time.

That's a different subject. This is about under the main belief of 'other people' despite that 'everything is created by 'my/you' thoughts.

Also, that means I created all the war, you guys, and etc.

No, it's not. That's just something you made up to make yourself look different from 'assumption'.
Assumption, is not and will never be concrete.

Education assumption is not concrete, but it is more solid than mindlessly going in and saying something.

Assumption is often based off some 'sort of' evidence' thing. It's just assumption. And again, not real concrete meaning you shouldn't act like you 100% know.

You can probably (depends) say "I assume he.." and that would be more accurate.

Just because society got better with some stuff, doesn't mean they are perfect.

A lot better than you think they are

Actually from discovering many things, that's not true.
Not just violating freedom, and disrespecting others for being themselves, but society in general is very hypocritical.

Just because they are clever at some stuff, doesn't mean they are smart.
You can be clever and still stupid about random subjects.
So stop straw picking or whatever that means.

You use the term straw-picking and you do not even know what it means?

Sorry, I assumed it was right.

If they were smarter, then we wouldn't have any discrimination, tabooing, tolerance for people being as "weird" as possible, and some more.

Would the creepy potential pedo be included? 

First I like to admit a mistake I wrote (The non-bold part). I meant to say we wouldn't have - 'intolerance' for people being as "weird" as possible.

Anyway, a pedo may violate a human right (Child) but if their is a pedo who would only control his stuff and only go to the fiction realm and nothing more, then as a responsible person with the understanding of Freedom, yes.
Also note: A pedophilia can exist without violating the law. Just saying.

And judging by some stuff I've seen too, we in general are still stupid.

Oh and also: www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08…
And in case you do not click on the link, here is one thing from it:

Zero Hedge, once again, is a site that has an agenda. I pulled my info through the BBC official website, and BBC is a non-biased source without an agenda and focuses solely on honest journalism.

And correlation is not causation. The SAT scores could be going down for a variety of reasons. People are getting smarter, and it has been shown the smarter you are the less you tend to care about things below your level. So maybe they are simply too smart for the test, and just do not give two fucks about it? That could be the case, because when you do not give two fucks about something you tend to slack off on it more.

I'm sorry but it's still a good site. A site with an 'agenda' can be a very useful site and since when the hell is having an 'agenda' means "wrong" or even "bad" all of a sudden? Also, stop depending on 'where' and look at the argument directly. BBC official? Are you a sheep of the main media? I thought you were not? But it seems you are that you can only trust the government 'official' stuff apparently.
And stop claiming it's "non-biased". That chart isn't made up you know.

Again, you are biased and idiotic. Plus, there is a difference between 'Clever', vs. 'Smart' too.
Seriously? It sounds like you belong on Before it's News as a crazy idiot type of person on there.

More proof why humans are getting more dumb:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/scientists-discover-proof-that-humanity-is-getting-dumber-smaller-and-weaker

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/people-getting-dumber-human-intelligence-victoria-era_n_3293846.html

http://www.livescience.com/37095-humans-smarter-or-dumber.html

The first one may be 'one of those' sites you think of, but that doesn't automatically mean they are wrong.

Not exactly true. A lot of the time, they connect.

Not all the time. Science can not answer everything.

Science means concrete. Sure they can't (currently) answer ghosts, and stuff. But clearly on claims about this world, etc. it does.
If science already proven something, it's probably superior to all claims on that something.

Plus scientific is supposed to be concrete results, etc. Which is more superior than a non-concrete result.

Even science is unsure on a lot of things.

It's like you don't even know what science is.
I mean theories it's self isn't scientific concrete, but stuff supporting it might be.
If science found what they believed exist, then it's science...
Oh and science already explained that this 'imaginary line' of yours is imaginary. And only an opinion that's not fact.

Example: The science shows how many there is, the history, etc.

That would be mathematics and historiography.

That's part of science.
If someone shows the past, that's also an observation.
And observation is a big part of science.

That's superior than someone saying "No it's not!" because of so.

This goes on within the scientific community itself actually.

Umm no it doesn't. Making a unproven claim because you said so is not science.
 We don't need people like you to ruin science.

 Where did you get this idea from? While scientists do take shit from the religious right, there is nothing stopping them from making their findings public.

No, a lot of overly emotional people try to keep things forbidden, makes it hard for other people to open. Plus some direct censorship exist.

What exactly, in this day and age, is stopping a scientist from getting his or her work out? Scientists have the internet and media and other means to get out their ideas. No one is stopping them.

The problem is that spreading those ideas are hard, people can be bullied for spreading the ideas, etc.
Some websites even forbid open talk about some subjects because those 'some subjects' are taboo.
 And of course, some overly emotional people made some consenting freedom illegal.

No, "probably" just means sometimes it can be true. But most of the time it isn't. 

www.thefreedictionary.com/prob…

It's been a while since you pulled that out.

Oh you mean my so-called "bible" that helps people know what stuff means, knows more grammar, etc? -Proud of it.

It's a non-concrete assumption. Probably has a possible CHANCE, but it's not 100% certain and can possibly be wrong. Science can possibly answer which side is correct on a subject.

Science can NOT answer everything. Science does a good job on explaining how the physical world works, but it can not answer political, religious, or philosophical issues. 

 Yes it can be actually. If someone claims "This is fake" And science shows and discovered that this was indeed Photoshopped, then yes it's fake.
Oh and by the way, "Science" doesn't fully know how our physical world works due to the fact that it's been proven that we still don't fully know matter, etc.

They have no idea what they are being fucked by. And perverted is not an opinion.

Pretty sure they do.

No they don't. Animals are just programmed to want to be fucked regardless of what the giver is and what it's intentions are.

Oh. So they are designed to be possibly raped?
Way to go Funnel. Thaanks for making yourself an even more idiotic moron than ever.
You sound like one of the bad kind of zoosexuals who don't care about consent.

Also, in reality, you don't know that. I heard a debate that non-human animals are programmed to survive like humans, to enjoy stuff like humans, and heard that they like pleasure, like humans. I would rather listen to open ideas and new open discoveries.

Yet, you couldn't even argued. If they see a human and 'fucks' that, then guess what? They know it.

And perverted IS an opinion. The term "perverted" is made up by some humans who has a unscientific opinion about people's likes and calls any other likes a weird made up term.

So the next time some guy is staring at and stalking your wife, don't do a damn thing, because it is just science doing it's thing!

That's a moral issue, the event and concern is real. But this? There is no concerned about the non-human animal.

It's like calling petting "petveriliskj" and that if the pets don't know that new made up term (Like how perverted is made up), then it's automatically "bad" now?

What? 

I say that to you with the term "perverted".

Yet again, if they enjoy something, nobody is hurt. or even raped (And as long if consent is involved in the first place).

Animals do not give consent. In fact, quite a few animals are rapists.

Actually it's proven that they do due to behavior, and reverse "bestiality".
And you claim they don't give consent, but then they rape others?
Do you even know what the word 'consent' means?
Behavior can show permission.

It will probably be from some furry site anyways.

Again, depending on 'where' and 'who'? This is why you are still not good at arguing.
You seem to think that a very good article is "false" JUST because of where it came from?
This is why humanity in general is getting more dumb.
Guess what? I don't do that crap. Even if a good article was from a horrid guy who supported rape of humans, I would still ONLY depend on the article regardless of who, where, why, when, and maybe others.

You always quote sites that have a political agenda that fits your views, Area. I do not trust any source that has a political agenda.

And also, you know the thing about furry sites outside of Furaffinity? A lot of those sites were created because Furaffinity banned a lot of the sick shit they were into!

When someone debates, THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. But you have to depend on how good the argument is. And that site area could still make a very good point. Plus don't you do the same thing?
And sorry but what is wrong with a 'political agenda'? We may need those to promote change actually.
So back at finding articles to support your claim (Kinda how people debate), it also depends on what the article has, and that article I tried to send you earlier had very good points and that's what matters.
But you clearly don't depend on a normal debate, and unfairly depend on the wrong things instead.
If I found an article on my side, but was very bad at arguing then consider it a crappy article then. So it's not just because "It's on my side". I actually try to debate naturally.

You don't know that. Plus Furaffinity isn't a perfect site either you know. And look at that? Taboos, banning people from openly discussing. Though I do not think Furaffnity would ban an open discussion debate.
Seeing them banning it would once again, justify my views that open, science, and curiosity is superior to overly emotional people.

 Actually they can consent. Consenting is about behavior, and action. You do not need to know English and write papers. If consent didn't exist, then non-human animals wouldn't exist.

And if they can't consent to anything, then everything should be illegal with a non-human animal.. if they somehow exist.

Yet, if it's legal to kill them for meet, then even actual rape of non-human animals (That even I am against) should be legal then.

Animals only know a few things: Eat, sleep, survive, fuck, and die. While domesticated animals who live in the presence of humans may exhibit more intelligence than other animals and some species do have intelligence closer to that of humans, they are only a small percentage of the animal kingdom.

The majority of wild animals and livestock are just mindless stupid drones. They can't consent through means of choice or emotion, because they have none of that. They do not consent to sex, they just want to be fucked. And even if it is a domestic animal, it still has no idea what emotion is, and just wants to be fucked too.  

Just like humans.

Actually you do not know that. Plus, they are still consenting to living, etc. That's what humans do, and you do have to know that birds also have small culture things (I.e. Nests, and other).
Humans don't have free will. It's all controlled by our brains and nature. Plus there is evidence that a lot of wild animals can do more than what you think.

Wanting = Permission = Consent.
Actually humans don't know what emotion is, and even non-human animals have them.
Just because they don't understand it that much, doesn't mean it's automatically 'non-consent'.
In fact, it's been proven that emotions CONTROL people, rather than give them a choice.

You are just randomly picking off-topic things and trying to connect.
'Animals' don't need to know emotions, and non-human animals do choose.
Just like humans because everything about a human is controlled by thoughts, in many ways..
The only 'difference' is that humans may have more room inside the brain, but they are not free.

So you failed at your argument even more.

It doesn't make any sense to call it rape when an animal is the one wanting, and yet, possibly raping the human after. That's just illogical.
And you still failed to have the other arguments.

I feel like I should show you the area, but you are probably just going to say "It'z from a certain guyz, furryz, etc.. which shows you can't listen to the criticism.

Then it is still rape.

Umm no it's not.
That is hilariously ridiculous.
I had a comic in an idea that a human was raped by a horse, (or whatever) then the police came and the guy explained the horse forced him to have sex, then the police arrested the men for.... "raping" the horse?

I'm sorry but if I had to depend on the evidence, the human didn't rape the horse. It was the horse that raped the human. (Or if the human wanted it, nobody is raped)
Just because you think it is, doesn't mean you are right.

Rape is UNWANTED, and an animal literally wanting to do that and doing it by force, is not rape.

People like you are the reason why humanity in general is getting very stupid. How emotionally idiotic people like you are becoming.

Of course, SOME humans are smart though.

If you get raped by a horse it is still rape, but the horse will not stand trial simply because it did not know any better, because it is an animal! 

Humans are animals.
And it's not rape. Because the animal consented/did/wanted to 'rape' the human.
I'm sorry but your reasoning is extremely idiotic.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/rape
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rape

a. The crime of using force or the threat of force to compel a person to submit to sexual intercourse.

b. The crime of using force or threat of force to compel a person to submit to some other sexual penetration.

c. Other unlawful sexual intercourse or penetration, as with an unconscious person or person below the age of or incapable of consent.

2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction: the rape of Europa by Zeus. 

I know it's more about humans, but the term 'rape' to other animals are based off of it. So technically this is the closest known term of rape and other animals.

And you are one of those anti-rape douchbags then.. Considering killing an animal without consent is worse than actual proven rape.

So wwwarea called me a douchebag for being against rape. Let. That. Sink. In.

*sigh* There is a reason why I bold, underlined, and Italic the word 'then'.
A logical argument in comparison type of argument.

Again, exposed to how stupidity it is, and worse, you support violating the natural right of an animal and consider GOOD things as "bad".
If animals don't have rights, then humans don't have rights.

Animals do not have rights because they do not have the intelligence to handle rights.

Yes they do. It's called 'Natural Rights'. A natural right is about willing to live such as surviving. All animals have that, including humans.
 More info? Look at that one stamp I've shown. It contains a lot of links that isn't made by me. The stamp it's self is mainly just linking to the info not made by me in case you don't like listening to a individual called 'wwwarea' (Well, not real name) make his own words.

Again, you expose your hypocrisy of you freaking out about people freaking about things they don't like.
What you do, is something wrong, and fairly unlikable like murder.

How is what I do anything like killing someone?

It's not as bad, but it's beyond the line of respect still.

 No, it's real healthy.

It's confirmed, he is an anarchist. 

An "anarchist" for believing in change, more rights, etc?
You are blinded by overly emotional control. Which is the true anarchist.

The only anarchy is tabooing consenting things out of pure belief.

That is the exact opposite of Anarchy, actually.

Umm. No it's not. It's exactly anarchy. It's always been a problem with open environments, freedom, and other good stuff. It's completly unhealthy.
You obviously do not believe in revolutionary either.

Why things are a taboo is due to either religious beliefs, random whiny opinions, etc.
It's all an unhealthy belief that is forced upon others for consenting in privacy.

And if you can't respect consenting things (e.g. Polygamy) then people won't respect you.
And shows how unhealthy you are obsessing with things consenting in private.

Fucking multiple girls is not polygamy. Polygamy is marrying multiple girls. And the reason it is frowned upon is because it leads to relationship problems and inheritance issues. Lets say that a lot of land is owned by the man, and his name is written on the papers for the land. The man dies, and you end up with a bunch of bickering widows who each want the inheritance and property. 
And there would be a lot of bickering when the man is still alive too. I do not see how a polygamy marriage can even be stable.

Sex with more than one girl is not the same as marrying more than one girl.

I know that. Marrying is a consenting thing...
Again, that's been proven false due to some stories about polygamous families. And either way, it's still wrong to violate privacy relationships regardless. They can try to handle it themselves.
It's like making it illegal for someone to have their own station because there is a change there can be stress with it.
But in the 'Land of the Free', people are supposed to be allowed to have a lot of relationships under the rightful property of humans.

But apparently, not allowing people on the so-called "Land of the Free" breaks the main morality. And makes the idea of 'Land of the Free' extremely hypocritical.

Even if it's "not" stabled, it doesn't make it wrong. Nobody should own what personal problems might happen.

So again, going against consenting freedom (E.g. Marrying) is wrong because it violates another Will of someone.

Anything consenting, or alone.
While Polygamy is more of a marriage thing, it can suggest that too as long if no other Freedom of another is violated..
(Polygamy laws violate freedom though)

I just explained this.

No you didn't. It still violates Freedom. Plus why are you saying that over a comment that was made at the same time BEFORE you commented on that? :S

All you did was explain why it was still a taboo, and it was a stupid reason.
You didn't explain why they were taboo in the first place. 

Actually I did! And you just brushed it off like usual!

I don't see it (Before you tried to explain one of them (I.e. Polygamy)).

How do you know? No really!
Actually I mean it's part of your main orientation..
Plus, I think the term 'orientation' is just a bunch of bullshit it's self.

No, it has a solid definition.

An unproven "solid" definition.

Everyone could be born an asexual.

That is not how it works!

What if it was true?
Think about it, no kid wants to have sex, and they get some types through development. 
I wonder why 'development' exists?

Again, you don't have proof that you are right.
While 'Normal' is already debunked, there is evidence that mind is over matter. And a recent experiment with atoms proving the theory of that.

The double slit again? The double slit says NOTHING about mind over matter.

Actually it does connect to that theory. And another one with atoms to prove the theory too.

And I already explained why it connects a few fighting articles back.

PaulandAmy has interfered with people. Different.

And there are a lot of people who are like him and have his mindset, who should all be watched! 

Watching them forever sounds like abuse you know (Yes, I am against the Sex Offender registry, that jail time is enough).
And again, the Golden Rule is about not interfering people it's self.
Oh and Polygamy laws violate the Golden Rule. :D

To protect individual freedom at least.
It's like fighting for your own country.

You are not a patriot.

Umm what?!
So are deciding that I can't fight for my own country?
What are you, a fucking dictator?
EVERYONE is allowed to be an activist for fighting for people's freedom.

Isn't that what you believe in? You think there are an infinite number of realities created by our quantum vibratory mind powers. Then wouldn't it be true, according to you, that the millions of kids who believe in Santa would eventually conjure up Santa?

No. Not on this world.
I am not sure if the multiverse is the same, it's also might of been said that when 'You' create reality, you are going into other parallel universes.

Wait, you think we are teleporting between universes now? Jeez.

There is a good theory that we are always creating billions of possibilities from point A.

Then again, yes it could be created by 'our quantum vibratory powers'.
I also believe in 'Oneness', and 'everything is Oneness'.. I mean I am not sure about it, but that's a theory.

What the hell is Oneness? 

It's an idea that 'We are all one', including the universe, and maybe beyond.
 Maybe the higher you go into higher dimensions the more closer you are.

Actually that doesn't exactly works.
There is the theory that if 'everyone' believed, it would happen, but I am more into the theory of two kinds:
1. 'You' create all the events too, including people.

Thanks for admitting you think the world revolves around yourself. Why won't you snap out of it and realize you live in the same world as everyone else and start acting like it.

Listen, it's a theory buddy. It's just what it said and there is good evidence about this "strange" idea.
And your theory about the world is not fully understood.
I also sort of quoted 'You' you know.

2. Each person does, but each one goes into their own parallel reality.

That is NOT how it works. 

"Because I said so!!" <You
 The reason why that's there is because since there is a lot of good evidence of 'Mind over Matter', and the fact that their is evidence that from point A, there is billions of possibilities, and that there is tons of evidence of multiple universes, that's why the theory could form.

Again, I do not fully know. It's either 1. or 2. With an open mind. I might hope it's 2.

I don't care if you think it's crazy it's self, but that's what interesting theories 'are' about.

It is fucking stupid is what it is. 

"Because my overly emotional mind said so because it can't stand new ideas!"

No, it's a sexuality. Just like Kissing. Kissing is a sexual idenity, and so is a "fetish".
Even Psychology Today believes it's a sexual identity.


No it isn't.

"Because I said so!" <You
How do you like it if I say your sexuality isn't a sexual identity then?

Plus, Psychology Today > You.
Observation, experiences, that isn't you > You.

Just stop treating your beliefs as fact because you simply want to. Especially over people NOT YOU.

And regardless, it's still nothing more extreme than kissing.
Oh and why did you say that 'Vore can be sexualized" if you think it's not a sexual thing?
Plus, if it's "not" sexual, then I guess all types "fetishes" can just go to G-rated then!

Yet, the term "fetish" is a stupid term to describe people being different.
Fetishes don't exist, the other things are just different ways of sexual identity.
Plus the term "fetish" has went way too far that it got way 'overused' too.

Here you are denying reality again. 

It's you that's denying reality. Bigot.

It's like you ignored what you quoted when you said that...
Plus, hugging isn't exactly equal, but they are both tamed down and not pass the PG-rated (Unless maybe that even depends...)
Again, vore can be tamed down, and not past 'extreme content'. Regardless of the idea.

We are talking about sexualized fetishy vore here and not some cartoon gag.

 Again, it doesn't matter what the idea is behind the graphic.
Plus it's not just a gag for everything.
Yet, there you go again saying 'sexual' after the fact that you said it's not sexual. Way to go!

Oh and kissing is based off sexuality too.

And no, just because it's different, doesn't mean it's "extreme" now.

No (maybe), it's the same in terms of content, and 'how gross feeling' it is.
Besides, some find kissing humans more personally gross than humans.

What? If I would kiss I would prefer to keep my mouth closed in the process because I do not want someone else's spit in my mouth (there are many types of kissing). But when I see open-mouth kissing on TV or anywhere else I do not lose my shit over it!

But if you see a simple vore, you lose your shit.
Not everyone likes kissing you know.
People should learn to not lose their shit whenever they see a different kind of sexual expression such as tamed down vore.

Maybe it's because it's been talked a lot and the fact that it's a very understanding natural idea to a lot of people? And how some people compare 'vore' to very "extreme" things such as 'scat', and maybe some others.

Well a lot of the time vore is linked with other fetishes like inflation, crush, foot, fart, etc. While vore is not so bad in itself because it is impossible to do in real life, it is often linked to a lot of other fetishes so it can be a red flag.

Kissing can be linked with many other things too. Just because it's mixed doesn't mean it's more extreme. Fat is just a style of someone, and so is other types of things. Even 'Vore' is just a style of things. Like I said "fetishes' has been WAY overused.

Just because it's linked, doesn't mean it's a 'red flag'.
So for example, JUST because this 'vore' has a mixed of 'micro' "fetish" doesn't mean it's more extreme.

Also even if vore was possible (Actually...) doesn't mean it's more extreme.

Again, the content it's self. Is no more extreme than kissing. Even if it had a mix of fat and vore because at the end, it's just a single type made up of differences (Like kissing, lips, spit, etc.) and the content, is still just a simple picture.
This isn't very extreme: LINK WARNING TOO
If I had to judge, all I see is a mouth open. And somebody is touching it.
Do you get it? No more extreme, no matter what idea is behind it. No matter what it is further, etc.
Oh and, I tried to find a fat picture, a lot of them were a bit more.. But if they were fat in a very tamed down way, showing, it's not even 'gross' at all. Just something you see on TV.

Let's say this was vore (It probably is):
thumb7.shutterstock.com/displa…
Now it's been made again, but with a 'sexual like' (e.g. Erotic?):
thumb7.shutterstock.com/displa…

OH NO. Different now.
*sarcasm*

That is a cartoon gag. Which is harmless.

1. Even if it wasn't a "gag", that doesn't mean it's harmful.
2. You are missing the point.

No. That is an off-topic discussion.
 If it wasn't then that journal would of mentioned it. But it didn't.

The sonic.exe thing is what started this 

No it didn't.
It doesn't connect with you making that journal about my own personal beliefs.

Even when I was on Fanpop, I admit that I started fights in places after one other thing because I thought 'connected' was an excuse.
But it was me starting it on the walls out of nowhere.
Why can't you admit something you do similar within journals out of nowhere?

Yet, you saying it "starts" with that is like saying that a fight 40 years later must be a "continue" based off 40 years ago of when you you hit your own brother.

You rant against people who do not like it.

No. I rant against the CLAIMS regardless of whether they like it or not.
Even if they loved it, but still made up unfair claims, I would still rant probably.
Like if they think it "sucked" people of what "critics say" or something.

What?

 Of course you don't see it.

You are just not making any sense anymore.
The law said it's not illegal. If that law said it's not illegal, it's not illegal.
Just like your ridiculous reasoning like "It'z fromz a furryz site, theorforz, wrong", depending on some off-topic thing, does not make you good in arguing.

Then find credible sources when debating a legal issue!

I did. Look it up on Google and look up blackmailing.
Plus, YOU don't have a credible source at all on your claim.

Say that to a homosexual, black person, white person, etc. who thinks the world should be about acceptance then.
Again, just because they think different, doesn't mean they are right.
Again, moral arguments exist.

Acceptance =/= selfishness

Well me demanding respect of people who are different without violating another will, isn't selfishness.
Plus, isn't it proven that everyone is selfish?

 Again, can't respect open theories. And can't even argue.
Maybe you need to be in one, including Peter.
Yet, a crazy person is someone who puts pain on others, not a spiritual fan who likes to accept 'new' views about life.

Crazy means mentally unstable.

And mentally unstable means people who puts pain on others too.
My theories, etc. isn't  unstable because it's under a reason, and belief.

Actually there is evidence that stuff existed before the Big Bang. Some scientists believe that it was just another universe.

Of course.

Is that supposed to be an insulting kind of message?

Some also believe that we are inside a 'black hole', etc.

I do not see how that can work, especially since the universe is expanding. 

Again, what you currently think of, is just a theory. There is also theories/ideas that the universe was never expanding.
Yet, how does that disprove the black hole thing even if it was?

The point about 'consciousness' is that it was always there. Even some believe that our 'universe' was always there.
Like I said, the Big Bang and some ideas behind it of what you believe in, are still only a theory.

Cosmic Radiation Background.

Another theory.. with another theory attached to it.

It could be a good theory, but you want to know what else is a good theory? The theory that stuff came before the Big Bang.
Hell, even some believe the the Universe goes in a major loop, swallowed by black holes, and recreated again.
It's fun when people are so open with theories, with another theory..

While the cyclic universe theory is entirely possible, the thing is those black holes suck everything up and form the singularity once more which results in another Big Bang. During the time from which the old universe dies out and collapses leading to the formation of the new one, there is no consciousness or life to create anything!

Nobody fully understands black holes yet.
And did you just admit that we came from another universe with the 'results in another Big Bang.' claim?

Actually we still fully don't know black holes or our entire universe and beyond. It's still and very possible that everything is infinite.
Yet, what creates black holes, what created stuff in the first place, etc?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/105-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/our-place-in-the-universe/635-if-the-universe-is-infinite-does-that-mean-there-is-an-infinite-number-of-me-s-intermediate

No, I mean morally arguing about morality and respect, is actually a good thing. It's against harmful things involving disrespecting other individuals. The only thing I am harming is the corrupted mentality that promotes unfair inequality, non-respect, and some other bad things.

You are not doing shit!

"Because I said so!" <You

 Because according to 'Mind over Matter', that the Spiritual World can be ANYTHING, and many other connections or so, it would be fair that someone can make up ... ANYTHING... and Sonic is part of that 'ANYTHING'. For logic, I had to say that as an example.

I fucking hate Sonic, but I still stand to my argument because it makes sense under the reasoning.
You seem to just attack it, and say "OMG, IT"Z SANIZ", as if that somehow "debunked" the reasoning.
Heaven is Heaven, you got to remember what that means.

There is a huge difference between spirituality and stupidity. And thinking you can turn into your Sonic FC is stupidity!

And how is it "stupid"? Just because you THINK it's "stupid" doesn't mean it's stupid.
There is NO proof that you know the after life, and there is NO proof that you know what spirituality mean. Logically, under the theory, it means that.
Just because your overly emotions find it "stupid" doesn't mean it is.

Get over it.

Only for one or a couple of people.

He. Raped. Them! That does not bother you at all?!

I said 'Only for one, or a couple of people'. That doesn't mean I am saying those certain people didn't rape them. I am saying that you seem to blame EVERYONE who has a like toward Amy or whatever this subject part was about.
How stupid can you get?

Not going to be the case for all.
I don't know if I wish, but I kinda "wish" I can like Amy (But I just can't) to show you why it's possible that more 'Amy lovers' are not going to the same direction.

Amy would actually think they are creeps. Which is ironic considering Amy is a freakish stalker herself. 

Amy, the imagination person? Gee, I thought you were against people believing characters can be real in other dimensions or something?
Plus don't forget the 'billions' of copies of her that may act different. And no, "canon" or "non-canon" doesn't exist.

Just like heterosexuality.

Not it isn't.

Yes it is, remember what I said about the story that a heterosexual person went into a house and raped someone?
That's just one of thousands too.

1. The first comment was probably giving an example of the actual rabid side.
2. One guy who can't argue, yet, someone already took care of it.
3. That has nothing to do with the subject directly.
4. Look at the favorites. And the OTHER comments that might make more sense.

I pulled those all from the first page of comments.

Umm, OK?
You said those comments as a reaction to 'Feedback', which isn't just about the first page.

Give me the snapshot. I am giving you permission of you to upload it on a private image site, only for the purpose of sharing it to me. Go again, comment on one of my blogs for that link.
I won't accuse you of harassment for this one because I am allowing just this.

Other than that, proof or it's bullshit.

We both know you would have the snapshot taken down anyways.

I am allowing you to have it uploaded in a private area. I wouldn't abuse my word.

In other words, "I censored wwwarea's comment because he disagreed with my opinion that it was a bad game!"

Your comment did not have anything to do with it. It was just a bunch of BS rambling!

Umm it did. I argued why the claims about the SAME subject was wrong, etc. And you censored it because you found it bullshit? Thanks for proving my point partly.

My 'view' is based off learning about Creative Commons from the outside of my mind.
Just like with a lot of stuff.
It's you that do that. Creative Commons (Accept for CC-0) is NOT open source, it's about credit generally. Don't believe me? Look it up.

And it allows people to profit off of your work as long as they credit you. Copyright makes sure people don't profit off of it period.

That doesn't automatically make it a loss sale. You also need to know that pure open source is about not having to credit included.
You also have to realize that there exist more monopoly licenses such as the 'no commercial use', and the worst of all 'no derivatives' licenses under 'Creative Commons'.

Once again an anti-copyright site.

Once again, depending on 'what' as if that was a "valid" argument to debunk the claim? This is why you shouldn't try to debate with people.

You: "Where is proof that 2+2=4?"
Me: Here, *Links to a furry site explaining why 2+2=4*
You: "That's a furry site."
Me: "So?"
You: "I'm going to ignore it and suggest it's false automatically because it's a furry site."
Me: *Facepalm*

This is not algebra.

Again, you don't get it. It's a fair comparison because of your bullshit of depending on where as an "argument".
You ignored an article showing the constitution, the history and purpose, all because the site may have had an 'agenda' to you, which by the way.. can sometimes be right on it's agenda.

Yet it does.
Talk to that dumb ass Anne Rice who would sue others for making Fan Fiction, talk to Nintendo who takes down ROM hack videos via Copyright action, talk to thousands of other people with take downs against fans work that already credited, etc.

Then she is violating copyright law then.

I wish you were right, but you probably are not.
Though it's been argued that Fair Use can apply to Fan Fiction because of the transformation argument, but I doubt you are basing it off of that because you actually think that Copyright is not about preventing people from freely copying and building upon.
You clearly are an idiot.
Copyright is not about Plagiarism, it's about monopolizing people. Even some of the Copyright websites say that I think.

You clearly don't know what Copyright actually is and does.
It's a monopoly/permission culture (Permission culture was learned from Nina Paley), etc.
Also, here is a video about Nina Paley explaining Copyright again.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO9FKQ…
But you will probably ignore it JUST because Nina Paley is an anti-copyright activist.. Showing you just can't take the open fair criticism.

The title of that video is "Copyright is Brain Damage"
I am not taking a video like that seriously.

 Of course you aren't because you just can't take the open criticism. You should watch it because she explains why and she did it pretty good. And if I had to use a sad depending thing, she was part of that program, with many people listening in the room.
The illusion of information being "Property" is brain damaging, and that's a pretty hard cold fact too.

So you admit that Copyright is a monopoly?
Just because it may not stop all doesn't mean it's not a monopoly anymore. It still is as it's still giving some writers legal "rights" to censor the expressions of them.

It is not a monopoly.

Umm, yes it is. If it's going to tell people what they can and cannot do with information, then that's a monopoly.

Not only you depend on popularity, but you also depend on 'where' and 'who'. You still don't understand Copyright, you are somewhat hypocritical, and maybe other problems.

That's why you lost.


I understand copyright.

Not even Copyright buddy. You always ignore my links just because it's a "anti-Copyright" thing, and you refuse to learn any actual criticism because your emotional mind can't stand what the sites aimed for that's different.

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html

Look under reproduction, proving that it's a monopoly.

And using that silly title (immature) shows why you can't understand the fair criticism and other people's reasoning.

This article owned Funnel despite what the stupidity of people said in those comments on DeviantART.

You mad? 

And that furthers justifies my point.

Well that was the commentary guys. And all I can say to wwwarea is one thing.

Where the hell are your morals?! Dear freaking god!

You proved that you, yourself do not have morals.
The moral is not violating another will, but seeing your case, you actually believe in things that do that.

You even prefer overly emotional assholes over the rights of other people.

You idioticly can't understand Copyright and makes no sense with it.

And just because society doesn't accept something, doesn't mean it's wrong.

--------------------

That's Funnel. This person is just a really dumb person who as always, can't seem to argue. Reason, or make any sense.
I admit, at least this guy does a but more better than Peter and at least tries sometimes, but still ends up being very stupid at the end.
One of the saddest things is that this person claims he knows what happens when people die and claim that it's "stupid" to believe in something that Funnel clearly can't understand, and doesn't even know.

And sometimes offensive.

===============================

End of request.