>>938351893
>I'm just pointing out that you have a belief system (which you're perfectly entitled to) which you are trying to impose on others as though your beliefs are absolute truths
Dude how many times do I have to admit that my opinions are completely subjective before you realize that I am trolling the shit out of you?
Of course me thinking that sex with animals is gross isn't enough to outlaw it, I don't have that judicial power nor do I want it.
Luckily enough people are grossed out by it to outlaw it in our social contract anyway and I don't care if that is unfair to the animal fuckers, because they're gross and I have no sympathy for them having their actions infringed upon in relation to this because I think people should be stopped from fucking animals.
I consider the hypothetical dog that is willing to fuck a guy in the ass, the same as the hypothetical kid that is technically able to consent to sex, sure they might exist, but to avoid the abuse of all of the individual dogs and kids who are unwilling to fuck or unable to consent to sex, engaging sexually with either should be blanket outlawed.
>You've already illustrated that by your reaction to my mention of vegetarians
You're really bad at detecting jokes I see.
>Because I'm trying to get you open your rather narrow mind to accept that just because you believe something doesn't make it right
I am aware of that, but trolling dog fuckers is fun.
>No. But I do make a defence of logic. If you had prefaced all of your statements ITT with the words "I believe...." (or "I do not believe....", depending on context), then I wouldn't have replied to you. Because you are entitled to your beliefs. But you do not have a monopoly on moral rectitude.
Man if I hadn't done the exact same thing as you in the past and showcased how much of a newfag I was, I would me mocking you even harder.
