He doesn't eat or frick animals.
He made a (logical) argument that it's fricking weird how meat eaters draw the line at screwing the things when they already eat, butcher, castrate, and imprison animals. Normies have been assblasted about it ever since, morally pristine, burger-engulfing normies, who've never done anything wrong and are as pure as the driven snow.
Granted, it's not like he's fixing the issue by being vegan. All sorts of rabbits and birds get absolutely shredded by industrial farming techniques.
Do animals consent when you chop their genitals off, put them in a cute sweater, and lock them in your house for the entirety of their unnatural lifespan?
11 months ago
Anonymous
You really are too low iq to understand that you aren't helping your case. Yes he has stated many times about how animal fricking is far more moral than killing the for meat LOL
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're too low iq to admit people are monsters, and you cling to words like normal because you know there's not actually a moral case for this thing you enjoy doing so much.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Jeez you sound like a hysterical woman. Take a chill pill bro and stay away from your local pound lol
11 months ago
Anonymous
You sound, again, moronic. Maybe you're so opposed to the idea because the last time you tried to frick a dog, you stuck your dick in the wrong end and lost half an inch.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>devolves into frothing at the mouth lurid fantasies about oral sex with dogs in response to being told to chill out
Never change moronkun
11 months ago
Anonymous
>lurid
You becoming unable to reproduce is a beautiful image.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>now moves on to guro
Yeah you're a very normal very sane individual
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's why you refer to it by its hentai tag, right? Not "gore." It's guro?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Are you lost newfriend? Were on Cinemaphile little bro
11 months ago
Anonymous
>gets aids >gets monkeypox
keep fricking animals anon and find what other diseases can spread to humans
11 months ago
Anonymous
Reading comprehension 100
11 months ago
Anonymous
Eating meat is rational and moral. Bestiality is evil. You trying to subvert this is enough reason to have you killed by the state.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Follow the reply thread dipshit im shitting on adam for arguing that beastiality is more moral than eating them
11 months ago
Anonymous
Horrid quints
11 months ago
Anonymous
witnessed
11 months ago
Anonymous
damn you're right we should push for people to violate their autonomy in other ways too!
11 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't say people should be pushed to do anything. This is the puritan, American mindset, where by tolerating something, rather than shrieking hysterically, one is condoning and encouraging it. It's similar to a Baptist preacher getting behind a pulpit and saying, "one bad apple...." when said preacher is visiting the same bars and hookers every Saturday.
11 months ago
Anonymous
exchange "pushed" for "allowed", does your whole argument fall apart?
He literally had to delete a video where he kept making jokes about sexy animals and animal fricking are because too many people were like "dude, what the frick?"
he is doing both. he is pointing out the hypocrisy among meat eaters but he also clearly is interested in arguing that animals can consent to sex with a human. its not just in one direction lol
Eating other animals keeps the circle of life going and creates healthy ecosystems. Do you get mad at a bear for eating an elk? Fricking other animals leads to AIDS and monkey pox.
>Eating other animals keeps the circle of life going and creates healthy ecosystems.
Industrial meat production is one of the biggest ecological concerns, It does not create healthy ecosystems, and in some instances, it's been an incubator for deadly disease. >Fricking other animals leads to AIDS and monkey pox.
Aids is manmade. Same with covid.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>industrial meat production blah blah blah
Oh so your one of those morons who thought back in the 1800's our species would outgrow our food supply and who thought twenty years ago there'd be no more snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Stop enforcing your cult on the rest of us. >AIDS is manmade
Most likely a government/journalist cover-up to protect homosexuals/africans/other degenerates. >Covid
I never said covid, I said monkey pox.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Oh so your one of those morons who thought back in the 1800's our species would outgrow our food supply and who thought twenty years ago there'd be no more snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Stop enforcing your cult on the rest of us.
No I'm just older than 13 and know what mad cow disease was. Implying that meat production somehow creates ecosystems is fricking laughable. >Most likely a government/journalist cover-up to protect homosexuals/africans/other degenerates.
Bullshit. What cracks me up is that all of these new diseases, with crazy and novel ways to kill humans, just happen start appearing as soon as the government starts toying gene editing and everybody is credulous. The shit in Wuhan is an example. The fricking lab was in the town. No correlation there. Here's the guy who runs the thing to explain why.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok, I'll concede on industrialized meat production, but I still like meat and I'm too poor and lazy to do my own hunting. That still brings us to the issue of eating vs fricking animals, which it's still ok to eat but not frick them, my original arguments still standing. Also, once again, I'm not talking about covid.
>He made a (logical) argument that it's fricking weird how meat eaters draw the line at screwing the things when they already eat, butcher, castrate, and imprison animals
They draw the line there because they consider animal fricking disgusting. What's logical on his part that he called it weird? Is it weird to be afraid of spiders but not crickets? You can call it hypocritical but what's your point? You're not changing anyone's mind.
It's weird to squash spiders, but not crickets. You can have whatever thoughts you wish, in my mind. When you're talking about actually manifesting your personal cruelties, I'm allergic to bullshit, even as a meat eater myself. I recognize that some poor thing lived a terrible life and then died a cruel death so I could eat its flesh myself. I can still absolutely judge someone who murders a person on a moral basis, because people are greater than other animals, but disgust is about as far as my reaction to an actual cow fricker is. I don't want to see him burn or hang or anything like that. I just don't want that to be the cow my burger comes from.
No, he aptly and correctly claimed that it is not morally wrong for humans to engage in sexual activities with consenting animals, which his critics were never able to refute without appealing to emotion or ad hominem attacks. But, as you can tell from this thread, it doesnt stop them from pathetically trying.
Furgays were always looked down upon sonce the beginning of this site, newbie. I would tell you to go suck an fricking Black person wiener but you would like that.
he tried to rationalise how being anti bestiality was hypocritical when you consume animal products such as meat and dairy in some extremely fakesmart way just for the sake of being a contrarian and since then he can't live down the dog fricker jokes. He is a furry degen but he doesn't frick dogs (as far as we know)
I genuinely dont think he actually fricks real dogs but he is an open furry. Reading the actual shit he wrote you can kind of tell he was trying to be smart with his "YOU CANT SAY FRICKING ANIMALS IS BAD BUT THEN EAT PROCESSED MEAT!!!" gotcha. But of course everyone eats meat and any sane individual just accepts fricking animals as degenerate and sick.
YMS unfortunately suffers from severe autism and blatant narcissism so hes completely unwilling to ever take the L on anything, even defending dog fricking.
Hes also a drug abusing degenerate in his own right and his NSFW twitter has been posted here numerous times showing him getting BLACKED by his bf.
he played devil's advocate on some podcast for the idea that dog can consent to sex. He did it so fervently that myself and many other anons believe he's fricked a dog.
>never proven
He uploaded a picture of HIMSELF getting fricked in the ass, and he had scratches all over his sides where a dog would scratch if it was gripping to frick him up the ass.
All jokes aside, He is a furry, he says he doesnt feel anything for real life dogs or pets in general. However, he has said multiple time he doesnt consider to be inmoral to have sex with an animal as long as they crearly want to as well.
All critics are, its a film that proved how pointless and obsolete film critics are.
They spent half a year shitting on it and trying to paint Chris Pratt as this garbage actor and racist and then the film comes out, becomes the highest grossing animated movie of all time and is beloved by fans and normies alike. Meanwhile the critics are screaming from the heavens how its actually bad and how they're victims of people being mean to them.
>writing full on paragraphs of text in youtube comments
idk why but i immediately assume anyone who does this is the biggest pseud homosexual imaginable
a large part of adams argument comes down to "well we already murder and forcefully inseminate animals, so why is it wrong to have sex with them"
but this doesnt make any sense, even if we acknowledge murdering and forcefully inseminating animals is wrong, that doesnt mean you do MORE wrong stuff to them. this kind of argument is really a tacit admission of a being on a losing side. its like "well sure having sex with animals is weird and probably wrong but... we already do other bad stuff to animals!"
the problem is that you'r etrying to claim it is immoral to frick animals, when the reality is that it is just disgusting but not technically immoral. we're fine with killing cows or pigs so why would we care if somebody fricks them? the only reason to be against bestiality is some primal instinct telling us it is repulsive but there is no logical moral argument to be made against it
Sure but the real issue is its a hill hes for some reason willing to die upon when any rational person would just say "yeah of course fricking dogs is wrong"
it depends what you mean by rational, if you're cowardly and willing to go with the opinions of people around you you will probably assume it isn't worth it, but if you care about what is actually true it is an interesting thing to argue about
>we're fine with killing cows or pigs so why would we care if somebody fricks them?
I never made a moral claim, im exposing the flawed logic in you saying "we're fine with these things we consider heinous so why not also this thing we consider heinous"
this is addressed without ever needing to delve into why people consider them heinous, im just saying your line of argumentation, that people are okay with this one thing they'd would agree violates an animals autonomy, so why not this additional thing that violates an animals autonomy?
nope, most people see it as an evil they simply turn a blind eye to. if you could lab grow meat and it were completely indistinguishable from real meat (not onions shit, not mystery meat, but lab grown cells that amount to real meat), only sadistic people would be left supporting a meat industry.
all this being the case, it doesnt mean people want additional evils they turn a blind eye to
11 months ago
Anonymous
Is spraying pesticides sadistic too? You're killing animals afterall. Not everyone is a cuck American a lot of cultures rely on animal meat in tradition to say shit like that is sadistic is honestly moronic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
we dont really value the sentience of insects the way we do animals. it would absolutely be sadistic if we could just give a cell-clone meat cut of a cow and you still wanted to raise and kill whole cows. yes that would by definition be sadistic lol
11 months ago
Anonymous
An animal is an animal you can't just pick and choose. Normal people don't value livestock beyond their purpose you're the creep in this case.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>An animal is an animal you can't just pick and choose.
of course you can lol. Nobody treats insects the same way as they would treat a lamb.
see
[...]
I genuinely dont think he actually fricks real dogs but he is an open furry. Reading the actual shit he wrote you can kind of tell he was trying to be smart with his "YOU CANT SAY FRICKING ANIMALS IS BAD BUT THEN EAT PROCESSED MEAT!!!" gotcha. But of course everyone eats meat and any sane individual just accepts fricking animals as degenerate and sick.
YMS unfortunately suffers from severe autism and blatant narcissism so hes completely unwilling to ever take the L on anything, even defending dog fricking.
Hes also a drug abusing degenerate in his own right and his NSFW twitter has been posted here numerous times showing him getting BLACKED by his bf.
said, I don't think he fricks dogs, but you can clearly see his ego won't let him admit when he makes a weird take.
Despite the autism, I still think he's one of the better critics on youtube who can actually analyze a film instead of resorting to criticizing it due to wokeness or political agendas.
people say they miss forums but they memory hole homosexuals like these being EVERYWHERE. you HAD to escape in offtopic subforums to escape from these freaks
Josh is such a homosexual. That Black person still is 100000000x worse than any furgay simply the damage he caused 8ch with his shitty backend code for infinity next
All of social media can gaslight me all they want, this homies videos will never be any different than Doug Walker screaming "BAT CREDIT CARD". Some long essay and being there first on Youtube doesn't somehow change that. And that's just ignoring the furgay and dogfricker shit.
Haven't been able to watch any videos after reading a discussion on him fricking dogs with his friends, then seeing him cored out by some BBC while wearing a fur helmet. Even if it wasn't him the correlation has rooted itself in my mind.
In hindsight making everyone mock him for his views on human canine relations has stopped everyone from mocking him for his absolutle horrendous taste in movies. Was it 4D chess?
I don't care for the Drinker's videos at all, but he's good on podcasts, and I don't understand any of the hate for him and YMS really just seems to be reaching incredibly hard to justify shitting on him when he's really just mad that famous people want to talk to him. I agree a lot of Drinker's criticism is towards dumb shit that doesn't matter but I don't see why every critic has to do the same thing. Disney and the like spend millions of dollars on these advertisements, of course people like Drinker are going to pop up in response to that.
Because YMS understands that channels like Drinkers would eat his entire audience up if they weren't shadowbanned and throttled while channels like his are pushed and put to the front of all the lines.
he also still seething several years later that rogan refused to see him
this is no joke something that happened. rogan was looking for someone that wanted to talk about furries on the podcast, so he contacted dogfricker
but the podcast never happened and dogfricker is still seething about it, he still mentions it from time to time how he wasn't on the rogan podcast.
The funny thing is that YMS is 100% correct with his bestiality argument. The idea that animals inherently can't consent to sex is absurd. That would make literally every sex act that has ever happened in nature rape. It's bonkers. As is the idea that the reason we don't frick animals is because they can't consent. We kill animals and eat them. We decide if they live, how they live, and when they die. We don't give a frick about their consent, nor should we.
But that inevitably leads you to ask: why DO we consider consensual bestiality wrong? And the answer is obvious. It's disgusting. It's offensive on a deeply primitive, even spiritual way. We have no problem with animal husbandry because we trust that no sicko is getting off on it. But if someone is getting off to it, we want to expel that person from our polite society. We have to. It's a biological imperative.
And the problem arises when we apply this logic to homosexuality. Without this ridiculous rule of consent, there is no valid reason to condemn bestiality but not homosexuality. If you take YMS's logic to its final conclusion, gay sex should be illegal. It is just as fundamentally repulsive as bestiality and should be outlawed in polite society. The entire idea of "do whatever you want as long as it's between consenting adults" is legal fiction that doesn't match any logical system of morality. There is no rational reason to outlaw one but not the other. YMS accidentally figured that out, and now he's caught in limbo. He can't say that bestiality is wrong without also implying that homosexuality is wrong. He got too close to the redpill and choked on it.
>You might as well argue about the age of consent not existing while you're at it creep.
Depends on what you mean by 'exist'. Do you honestly believe that there is a magic age at which everyone becomes fully aware of what sex entails? That's obviously horseshit. Of course there are plenty of kids younger than 16 can consent to sex. There are 10 year olds in China who are smarter than this entire board combined. And there are grandparents who have never been taught what an STD is. However you want to define capacity to consent, you are going to find exceptions in age everywhere you look.
The reason we have an age of consent is to make it easier to catch pedophiles. Because pedos are vile scum that need to be rooted out at almost any cost. So we make up this legal fiction so that it's far easier to catch and arrest pedos. The same rule applies to animal-frickers. Don't need to waste time trying to prove how sick these people are, just go right to jail. It's a good system. The problem is that we've forgotten why it exists. There are a lot of people who would have you believe that the reason pedophilia is horrible is because it's "violating consent" instead of the much more simple and pure reason being that pedophiles are disgusting and don't belong in a healthy society.
>And the answer is obvious. It's disgusting. It's offensive on a deeply primitive
Those are subjective qualities though. What are the OBJECTIVE reasons why we shouldn't frick animals.
I'm not into bestiality but your comment got me thinking about why we shouldn't frick animals.
Like, you can't be against gay sex or whatever because "it's gross". That's not an argument.
>Those are subjective qualities though.
Not really. They're traits given to us by evolution. People who see it differently have some sort of error, a mental disorder.
Cleanliness, the avoidance of disease, is a moral good same as any other. There's a long debate to be had as to whether than moral good outweighs stripping people of their freedom of choice, but there have to be rules to society that some people aren't going to like. What if my sexual fetish was killing other people? You can't allow anything.
>There's a long debate to be had as to whether than moral good outweighs stripping people of their freedom of choice
Yes ofcourse... now explain how restricting the right of someone fricking an animal to be bad inherently. >disease
you already get that with humans >cleanliness
same as above >morals
Disregard any spirituality of any kind how is it bad "morally"
A man fricking another man doesn't harm anyone, why would fricking an animal? If the animal is harmed sure, but we've already established that it's fair game in the wild so why should we humans feel bad for fricking animals? >sexual fetish is killing people
That would be bad because you're harming other people. Easy.
The issue is not Adam being right or wrong. It is the reason he argues to begin with. To be antagonistic was his only aim. He has said as much. And so the only outcome of his argument is zoophiles feel more at ease with their activities. It would be different, if Adam was making some stand against meat eating (he is not) or was even outright pro-bestiality (he is not). Instead anyone engaging with this argument is left with the impression foul men win and nothing good has been done. And all for what, Adams pride. It is not worth thinking over, the man who made the argument clearly didn't.
>You might as well argue about the age of consent not existing while you're at it creep.
Depends on what you mean by 'exist'. Do you honestly believe that there is a magic age at which everyone becomes fully aware of what sex entails? That's obviously horseshit. Of course there are plenty of kids younger than 16 can consent to sex. There are 10 year olds in China who are smarter than this entire board combined. And there are grandparents who have never been taught what an STD is. However you want to define capacity to consent, you are going to find exceptions in age everywhere you look.
The reason we have an age of consent is to make it easier to catch pedophiles. Because pedos are vile scum that need to be rooted out at almost any cost. So we make up this legal fiction so that it's far easier to catch and arrest pedos. The same rule applies to animal-frickers. Don't need to waste time trying to prove how sick these people are, just go right to jail. It's a good system. The problem is that we've forgotten why it exists. There are a lot of people who would have you believe that the reason pedophilia is horrible is because it's "violating consent" instead of the much more simple and pure reason being that pedophiles are disgusting and don't belong in a healthy society.
What a load of shit. Even assuming you aren't speaking on US law, absolute load.
I stood behind him at a festival screening once. He was smoking a cigarette and blowing smoke in everyone's face. That's kindof a normal thing here in Europe, but back home that's a big nono.
I was also really surprised by how tall he is.
You don't need to "argue" for beastiality being bad. If someone does it they should be killed, either legally with due process or failing that through vigilantism >b-but muh hypocr-
no one cares
This guy must have had a fricked up childhood to be the way he is. He talked about his brother beating him and smothering him with a pillow a lot, doesn't excuse the dogfricking though
to play devil's advocate, why is fricking a different species bad. you need to have some underlying rule if this is what you believe. you cant just say "its icky".
I'm glad he ranked Oppenheimer appropriately. It was a genuinely shitty film that required TONS of gimmicks to try and hide its shittyness. >A-List celebrities to help sell the film >IMAX film for no reason >3-hour run time so it "felt epic" and tricked the audience >Constant score to keep the audience from falling asleep >Attractive women who looked NOTHING like their real world counterparts >Non-linear narrative for Oscar-bait
I honestly don't know how to feel now that he rated it based on the same things I questioned about the film. To think I have the same taste as a dog fricker homosexual degenerate, ugh
I don't really care, since I had these opinions about the film weeks ago.
They're basic filmmaking criticisms that most people should come to the same conclusions on.
If this film was made by anyone other than Nolan, it would be immediately panned and likely dropped by distributors.
But of course, Nolan makes films aimed at low-IQ midwits to make them feel smart.
Used to watch his channel since he seemed to give genuinely thoughtful reviews but every "good" movie he reviewed that Ive watched were so disappointing - Everything, Everywhere, All at once, Climax, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, just turned out to be boring dogshit. He has bad tastes in movies.
He's been mocked for his bad taste for so many years he clearly now just holds back until he can give a safe opinion with a smattering of his dogshit(pni) observations.
shan't be watching. btw he fricks dogs
>noooo not le hecking pupperinos!
i bet you eat meat, too
Nice self report bro
Yes, I eat meat, I don't frick it.
Frick off Adum
Of course I do. I'm a healthy and well-adjusted adult
He doesn't eat or frick animals.
He made a (logical) argument that it's fricking weird how meat eaters draw the line at screwing the things when they already eat, butcher, castrate, and imprison animals. Normies have been assblasted about it ever since, morally pristine, burger-engulfing normies, who've never done anything wrong and are as pure as the driven snow.
Granted, it's not like he's fixing the issue by being vegan. All sorts of rabbits and birds get absolutely shredded by industrial farming techniques.
>He doesn't eat or frick animals.
But he's probably a vore gay and if he was in his anthro form I bet he'd eat a little HUMAN
Normal people don't defend bestiality for "rhetorical" purposes, only animal frickers do that.
He's not defending bestiality. He's condemning eating meat as being morally equivalent, because it is.
He is literally defending bestiality
>noo it doesn't count because it's just rhetoric for his real argument about
NORMAL PEOPLE DO NOT DO THIS
You're a moron.
You're an animal rapist.
Sure doesn't read that way, especially with all his talk about animals being able to consent lmfao
Do animals consent when you chop their genitals off, put them in a cute sweater, and lock them in your house for the entirety of their unnatural lifespan?
You really are too low iq to understand that you aren't helping your case. Yes he has stated many times about how animal fricking is far more moral than killing the for meat LOL
You're too low iq to admit people are monsters, and you cling to words like normal because you know there's not actually a moral case for this thing you enjoy doing so much.
Jeez you sound like a hysterical woman. Take a chill pill bro and stay away from your local pound lol
You sound, again, moronic. Maybe you're so opposed to the idea because the last time you tried to frick a dog, you stuck your dick in the wrong end and lost half an inch.
>devolves into frothing at the mouth lurid fantasies about oral sex with dogs in response to being told to chill out
Never change moronkun
>lurid
You becoming unable to reproduce is a beautiful image.
>now moves on to guro
Yeah you're a very normal very sane individual
That's why you refer to it by its hentai tag, right? Not "gore." It's guro?
Are you lost newfriend? Were on Cinemaphile little bro
>gets aids
>gets monkeypox
keep fricking animals anon and find what other diseases can spread to humans
Reading comprehension 100
Eating meat is rational and moral. Bestiality is evil. You trying to subvert this is enough reason to have you killed by the state.
Follow the reply thread dipshit im shitting on adam for arguing that beastiality is more moral than eating them
Horrid quints
witnessed
damn you're right we should push for people to violate their autonomy in other ways too!
I didn't say people should be pushed to do anything. This is the puritan, American mindset, where by tolerating something, rather than shrieking hysterically, one is condoning and encouraging it. It's similar to a Baptist preacher getting behind a pulpit and saying, "one bad apple...." when said preacher is visiting the same bars and hookers every Saturday.
exchange "pushed" for "allowed", does your whole argument fall apart?
He literally had to delete a video where he kept making jokes about sexy animals and animal fricking are because too many people were like "dude, what the frick?"
he is doing both. he is pointing out the hypocrisy among meat eaters but he also clearly is interested in arguing that animals can consent to sex with a human. its not just in one direction lol
Eating other animals keeps the circle of life going and creates healthy ecosystems. Do you get mad at a bear for eating an elk? Fricking other animals leads to AIDS and monkey pox.
>Eating other animals keeps the circle of life going and creates healthy ecosystems.
Industrial meat production is one of the biggest ecological concerns, It does not create healthy ecosystems, and in some instances, it's been an incubator for deadly disease.
>Fricking other animals leads to AIDS and monkey pox.
Aids is manmade. Same with covid.
>industrial meat production blah blah blah
Oh so your one of those morons who thought back in the 1800's our species would outgrow our food supply and who thought twenty years ago there'd be no more snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Stop enforcing your cult on the rest of us.
>AIDS is manmade
Most likely a government/journalist cover-up to protect homosexuals/africans/other degenerates.
>Covid
I never said covid, I said monkey pox.
>Oh so your one of those morons who thought back in the 1800's our species would outgrow our food supply and who thought twenty years ago there'd be no more snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro. Stop enforcing your cult on the rest of us.
No I'm just older than 13 and know what mad cow disease was. Implying that meat production somehow creates ecosystems is fricking laughable.
>Most likely a government/journalist cover-up to protect homosexuals/africans/other degenerates.
Bullshit. What cracks me up is that all of these new diseases, with crazy and novel ways to kill humans, just happen start appearing as soon as the government starts toying gene editing and everybody is credulous. The shit in Wuhan is an example. The fricking lab was in the town. No correlation there. Here's the guy who runs the thing to explain why.
Ok, I'll concede on industrialized meat production, but I still like meat and I'm too poor and lazy to do my own hunting. That still brings us to the issue of eating vs fricking animals, which it's still ok to eat but not frick them, my original arguments still standing. Also, once again, I'm not talking about covid.
>He made a (logical) argument that it's fricking weird how meat eaters draw the line at screwing the things when they already eat, butcher, castrate, and imprison animals
They draw the line there because they consider animal fricking disgusting. What's logical on his part that he called it weird? Is it weird to be afraid of spiders but not crickets? You can call it hypocritical but what's your point? You're not changing anyone's mind.
It's weird to squash spiders, but not crickets. You can have whatever thoughts you wish, in my mind. When you're talking about actually manifesting your personal cruelties, I'm allergic to bullshit, even as a meat eater myself. I recognize that some poor thing lived a terrible life and then died a cruel death so I could eat its flesh myself. I can still absolutely judge someone who murders a person on a moral basis, because people are greater than other animals, but disgust is about as far as my reaction to an actual cow fricker is. I don't want to see him burn or hang or anything like that. I just don't want that to be the cow my burger comes from.
It's just his culture. You need to be more tolerant.
raping animals is white culture
arabs and israelites moreso
ok chang
Hide ya dags
Shilling the dogfricker.
Interesting strategy. Let's see how it works out.
>watching a dog-fricking gay furry's opinions on anything
doesn't he suck dog dicks?
No, he aptly and correctly claimed that it is not morally wrong for humans to engage in sexual activities with consenting animals, which his critics were never able to refute without appealing to emotion or ad hominem attacks. But, as you can tell from this thread, it doesnt stop them from pathetically trying.
Sup, Adam. Sucked yet another dog dick today?
Reeks of reddit incel
He also says people with aids should be allowed to donate blood so I dunno man. Saying eating animals is as bad as fricking them is weird.
someone ask the dogfricker if TLK part 2 will ever be released holy shit.
Look at ye, watching this absolute degenerate. You should be ashamed of yourself.
this is Cinemaphile, sweety. perhaps your local church's facebook group is more up to your speed
theres a difference between degenerates and dogfricker degenerates, sweety
Furgays were always looked down upon sonce the beginning of this site, newbie. I would tell you to go suck an fricking Black person wiener but you would like that.
newbies will say this but will cry when they see a CP thread even doh its shitcan culture and the only reason this site got any relevance
If you don't like it then maybe Reddit is more your speed, you fricking moronic pillow biter.
i don't care about the opinion of a furry and dog fricker about movies
isn't he just a furry or has he literally fricked a dog?
no but he tried justifying it
he tried to rationalise how being anti bestiality was hypocritical when you consume animal products such as meat and dairy in some extremely fakesmart way just for the sake of being a contrarian and since then he can't live down the dog fricker jokes. He is a furry degen but he doesn't frick dogs (as far as we know)
Nice try yms
see
I genuinely dont think he actually fricks real dogs but he is an open furry. Reading the actual shit he wrote you can kind of tell he was trying to be smart with his "YOU CANT SAY FRICKING ANIMALS IS BAD BUT THEN EAT PROCESSED MEAT!!!" gotcha. But of course everyone eats meat and any sane individual just accepts fricking animals as degenerate and sick.
YMS unfortunately suffers from severe autism and blatant narcissism so hes completely unwilling to ever take the L on anything, even defending dog fricking.
Hes also a drug abusing degenerate in his own right and his NSFW twitter has been posted here numerous times showing him getting BLACKED by his bf.
these replies are super weak lol, he has 100% fricked a dog with how fervently he defends the idea that animals can consent.
Both.
He got fricked by black man
he played devil's advocate on some podcast for the idea that dog can consent to sex. He did it so fervently that myself and many other anons believe he's fricked a dog.
was never proven
innocent like fantano
Thats a lot of cancer in one picture
New soijak template just dropped
Both get fricked by black men
>never proven
He uploaded a picture of HIMSELF getting fricked in the ass, and he had scratches all over his sides where a dog would scratch if it was gripping to frick him up the ass.
fantano is such a fricking gay
Hes about to get his butthole gaped by big Activision wiener, he can't keep winning
All jokes aside, He is a furry, he says he doesnt feel anything for real life dogs or pets in general. However, he has said multiple time he doesnt consider to be inmoral to have sex with an animal as long as they crearly want to as well.
I love how hes still somehow SEETHING about the Mario movie.
sonygroes are deranged
All critics are, its a film that proved how pointless and obsolete film critics are.
They spent half a year shitting on it and trying to paint Chris Pratt as this garbage actor and racist and then the film comes out, becomes the highest grossing animated movie of all time and is beloved by fans and normies alike. Meanwhile the critics are screaming from the heavens how its actually bad and how they're victims of people being mean to them.
it’s a bad movie anon.
Why does everyone held this unironic dog fricker furgay in such high esteem? What makes this homosexual so special compared to other movie reviewers?
Le "I an hard to please and hyperanalytical" meme reviewer
Take it friends.
Arm yourselves with knowledge.
>writing full on paragraphs of text in youtube comments
idk why but i immediately assume anyone who does this is the biggest pseud homosexual imaginable
>sjw shit to say animals cant consent to sex
I'm not reading all that but does he mention that god isnt real so you can do anything or some other crap like that
a large part of adams argument comes down to "well we already murder and forcefully inseminate animals, so why is it wrong to have sex with them"
but this doesnt make any sense, even if we acknowledge murdering and forcefully inseminating animals is wrong, that doesnt mean you do MORE wrong stuff to them. this kind of argument is really a tacit admission of a being on a losing side. its like "well sure having sex with animals is weird and probably wrong but... we already do other bad stuff to animals!"
Odd considering Adam most probably knows and is friends with actual zoophiles in real life if he isn't one himself
adam's editor is a troony who recently was on the verge of suicide because the highlights channel was demonetized and he couldn't make money. no joke.
the problem is that you'r etrying to claim it is immoral to frick animals, when the reality is that it is just disgusting but not technically immoral. we're fine with killing cows or pigs so why would we care if somebody fricks them? the only reason to be against bestiality is some primal instinct telling us it is repulsive but there is no logical moral argument to be made against it
Iamverysmart!!!!
keep seething little brainlet
No just said iamverysmart I agree with you!!!
Sure but the real issue is its a hill hes for some reason willing to die upon when any rational person would just say "yeah of course fricking dogs is wrong"
it depends what you mean by rational, if you're cowardly and willing to go with the opinions of people around you you will probably assume it isn't worth it, but if you care about what is actually true it is an interesting thing to argue about
>we're fine with killing cows or pigs so why would we care if somebody fricks them?
I never made a moral claim, im exposing the flawed logic in you saying "we're fine with these things we consider heinous so why not also this thing we consider heinous"
this is addressed without ever needing to delve into why people consider them heinous, im just saying your line of argumentation, that people are okay with this one thing they'd would agree violates an animals autonomy, so why not this additional thing that violates an animals autonomy?
your line of reasoning is entirely wrong, we don't consider killing cows or pigs heinous. if we did it we wouldn't allow it.
nope, most people see it as an evil they simply turn a blind eye to. if you could lab grow meat and it were completely indistinguishable from real meat (not onions shit, not mystery meat, but lab grown cells that amount to real meat), only sadistic people would be left supporting a meat industry.
all this being the case, it doesnt mean people want additional evils they turn a blind eye to
Is spraying pesticides sadistic too? You're killing animals afterall. Not everyone is a cuck American a lot of cultures rely on animal meat in tradition to say shit like that is sadistic is honestly moronic.
we dont really value the sentience of insects the way we do animals. it would absolutely be sadistic if we could just give a cell-clone meat cut of a cow and you still wanted to raise and kill whole cows. yes that would by definition be sadistic lol
An animal is an animal you can't just pick and choose. Normal people don't value livestock beyond their purpose you're the creep in this case.
>An animal is an animal you can't just pick and choose.
of course you can lol. Nobody treats insects the same way as they would treat a lamb.
Black person, I'm not reading a novels worth on the ethics of fricking dogs.
tldr; yms is stupid (like im an atheist debate me from 2007 stupid)
As
said, I don't think he fricks dogs, but you can clearly see his ego won't let him admit when he makes a weird take.
Despite the autism, I still think he's one of the better critics on youtube who can actually analyze a film instead of resorting to criticizing it due to wokeness or political agendas.
I don't see how this is anything else other than Kiwi getting utterly blown the frick out for being dishonest
Fricking hell that shit is cringe.
jewsh is such a gay when he starts effortposting. Just say he fricks dogs and move on.
people say they miss forums but they memory hole homosexuals like these being EVERYWHERE. you HAD to escape in offtopic subforums to escape from these freaks
Josh is such a homosexual. That Black person still is 100000000x worse than any furgay simply the damage he caused 8ch with his shitty backend code for infinity next
Hide your dogs he is back in town
Pity this dogfricker can't get excited seeing Feynman and his bongo
i wouldt leave him alone with my dog
Dog rapist
friendly PSA:
someone will inevitably ask someone to post YMS nudes and you might feel compelled or curious to check them out.
DON'T.
---sent from iPhone
his best video is a tutorial to learn how to throw up when watching his videos
All of social media can gaslight me all they want, this homies videos will never be any different than Doug Walker screaming "BAT CREDIT CARD". Some long essay and being there first on Youtube doesn't somehow change that. And that's just ignoring the furgay and dogfricker shit.
If someone shot this furhomosexual in the face, what sector of humanity would suffer?
It would be the MLK assassination for zoophiles
I wish it was legal to fricking kill people. This dog fricker and every other degenerate furgay does not earn having the breath of life.
Haven't been able to watch any videos after reading a discussion on him fricking dogs with his friends, then seeing him cored out by some BBC while wearing a fur helmet. Even if it wasn't him the correlation has rooted itself in my mind.
Not a bad review, but the 5 minute rant about dog fricking was a little unhinged.
In hindsight making everyone mock him for his views on human canine relations has stopped everyone from mocking him for his absolutle horrendous taste in movies. Was it 4D chess?
Idk he's still a shit smeared moron either way, not much of a "win" is it?
Is this the bat credit card guy?
No he's the guy who made that insanely racist review of Precious
Plz do not insult Douge-sama with such a comparison.
What's Barbenheimer?
Opinions don't matter when you frick dogs
>2 hours of him shitting on critical drinker
holy frick he's SEETHING
He's not my jam, but I have to say I like that Drinker makes creeps like Adum so mad.
I don't care for the Drinker's videos at all, but he's good on podcasts, and I don't understand any of the hate for him and YMS really just seems to be reaching incredibly hard to justify shitting on him when he's really just mad that famous people want to talk to him. I agree a lot of Drinker's criticism is towards dumb shit that doesn't matter but I don't see why every critic has to do the same thing. Disney and the like spend millions of dollars on these advertisements, of course people like Drinker are going to pop up in response to that.
Because YMS understands that channels like Drinkers would eat his entire audience up if they weren't shadowbanned and throttled while channels like his are pushed and put to the front of all the lines.
your movie sucks dot org?
MORE LIKE IM GOING TO FRICK YOUR DOG!!!
Remember when he cried after RLM made fun of channels like his, good times.
that wasn't him, that was stuckmann
but he begged to be on RLM and they refused him
>funhaus guest spot was the very height of his career
Grim.
he also still seething several years later that rogan refused to see him
this is no joke something that happened. rogan was looking for someone that wanted to talk about furries on the podcast, so he contacted dogfricker
but the podcast never happened and dogfricker is still seething about it, he still mentions it from time to time how he wasn't on the rogan podcast.
why do you guys worship this gay furry?
His takes are based
He knows a lot about movies
The funny thing is that YMS is 100% correct with his bestiality argument. The idea that animals inherently can't consent to sex is absurd. That would make literally every sex act that has ever happened in nature rape. It's bonkers. As is the idea that the reason we don't frick animals is because they can't consent. We kill animals and eat them. We decide if they live, how they live, and when they die. We don't give a frick about their consent, nor should we.
But that inevitably leads you to ask: why DO we consider consensual bestiality wrong? And the answer is obvious. It's disgusting. It's offensive on a deeply primitive, even spiritual way. We have no problem with animal husbandry because we trust that no sicko is getting off on it. But if someone is getting off to it, we want to expel that person from our polite society. We have to. It's a biological imperative.
And the problem arises when we apply this logic to homosexuality. Without this ridiculous rule of consent, there is no valid reason to condemn bestiality but not homosexuality. If you take YMS's logic to its final conclusion, gay sex should be illegal. It is just as fundamentally repulsive as bestiality and should be outlawed in polite society. The entire idea of "do whatever you want as long as it's between consenting adults" is legal fiction that doesn't match any logical system of morality. There is no rational reason to outlaw one but not the other. YMS accidentally figured that out, and now he's caught in limbo. He can't say that bestiality is wrong without also implying that homosexuality is wrong. He got too close to the redpill and choked on it.
Yeah im not reading about how much you love taking wiener in your ass, thank you
You might as well argue about the age of consent not existing while you're at it creep.
>You might as well argue about the age of consent not existing while you're at it creep.
Depends on what you mean by 'exist'. Do you honestly believe that there is a magic age at which everyone becomes fully aware of what sex entails? That's obviously horseshit. Of course there are plenty of kids younger than 16 can consent to sex. There are 10 year olds in China who are smarter than this entire board combined. And there are grandparents who have never been taught what an STD is. However you want to define capacity to consent, you are going to find exceptions in age everywhere you look.
The reason we have an age of consent is to make it easier to catch pedophiles. Because pedos are vile scum that need to be rooted out at almost any cost. So we make up this legal fiction so that it's far easier to catch and arrest pedos. The same rule applies to animal-frickers. Don't need to waste time trying to prove how sick these people are, just go right to jail. It's a good system. The problem is that we've forgotten why it exists. There are a lot of people who would have you believe that the reason pedophilia is horrible is because it's "violating consent" instead of the much more simple and pure reason being that pedophiles are disgusting and don't belong in a healthy society.
>And the answer is obvious. It's disgusting. It's offensive on a deeply primitive
Those are subjective qualities though. What are the OBJECTIVE reasons why we shouldn't frick animals.
I'm not into bestiality but your comment got me thinking about why we shouldn't frick animals.
Like, you can't be against gay sex or whatever because "it's gross". That's not an argument.
>Those are subjective qualities though.
Not really. They're traits given to us by evolution. People who see it differently have some sort of error, a mental disorder.
Cleanliness, the avoidance of disease, is a moral good same as any other. There's a long debate to be had as to whether than moral good outweighs stripping people of their freedom of choice, but there have to be rules to society that some people aren't going to like. What if my sexual fetish was killing other people? You can't allow anything.
>There's a long debate to be had as to whether than moral good outweighs stripping people of their freedom of choice
Yes ofcourse... now explain how restricting the right of someone fricking an animal to be bad inherently.
>disease
you already get that with humans
>cleanliness
same as above
>morals
Disregard any spirituality of any kind how is it bad "morally"
A man fricking another man doesn't harm anyone, why would fricking an animal? If the animal is harmed sure, but we've already established that it's fair game in the wild so why should we humans feel bad for fricking animals?
>sexual fetish is killing people
That would be bad because you're harming other people. Easy.
Disease prevention, mostly. If a chick fricks enough dogs, she's probably gonna end up catching some shit and pass it to whoever claps her ass.
The issue is not Adam being right or wrong. It is the reason he argues to begin with. To be antagonistic was his only aim. He has said as much. And so the only outcome of his argument is zoophiles feel more at ease with their activities. It would be different, if Adam was making some stand against meat eating (he is not) or was even outright pro-bestiality (he is not). Instead anyone engaging with this argument is left with the impression foul men win and nothing good has been done. And all for what, Adams pride. It is not worth thinking over, the man who made the argument clearly didn't.
What a load of shit. Even assuming you aren't speaking on US law, absolute load.
Damn your pic goes hard as frick. Leopard Seals really are scary.
i don't know why i expect people on a film/ tv board to talk about his opinion on a movie rather lolcow shit
>his opinion on a movie
That's like caring about what games DSP is playing
Ever since his NSFW social media shit was posted I can't watch his videos anymore.
Drinker...bros....we got too wienery.
The Chad Jock vs The Incel Leaf
HE’S CLIMBLING IN YOUR DOG HOUSE
SNATCHIN YOUR DOGGIES UP
TRYNA RAPE EM
I stood behind him at a festival screening once. He was smoking a cigarette and blowing smoke in everyone's face. That's kindof a normal thing here in Europe, but back home that's a big nono.
I was also really surprised by how tall he is.
adam reviewing movies he feels "above" is boring and pointless. he's good at shitting on movies autistically
Is he though?
You don't need to "argue" for beastiality being bad. If someone does it they should be killed, either legally with due process or failing that through vigilantism
>b-but muh hypocr-
no one cares
This guy must have had a fricked up childhood to be the way he is. He talked about his brother beating him and smothering him with a pillow a lot, doesn't excuse the dogfricking though
Isn't this the guy who tweetted pictures of himself getting buttfricked by a Black person?
the review was good though
Call me when he actually finishes that Lion King 2019 review.
Isn't the immorality of fricking an animal not a question of consent but because it's a different species?
to play devil's advocate, why is fricking a different species bad. you need to have some underlying rule if this is what you believe. you cant just say "its icky".
I'm glad he ranked Oppenheimer appropriately. It was a genuinely shitty film that required TONS of gimmicks to try and hide its shittyness.
>A-List celebrities to help sell the film
>IMAX film for no reason
>3-hour run time so it "felt epic" and tricked the audience
>Constant score to keep the audience from falling asleep
>Attractive women who looked NOTHING like their real world counterparts
>Non-linear narrative for Oscar-bait
true. anyone can tell the film was a boring fest
I honestly don't know how to feel now that he rated it based on the same things I questioned about the film. To think I have the same taste as a dog fricker homosexual degenerate, ugh
I don't really care, since I had these opinions about the film weeks ago.
They're basic filmmaking criticisms that most people should come to the same conclusions on.
If this film was made by anyone other than Nolan, it would be immediately panned and likely dropped by distributors.
But of course, Nolan makes films aimed at low-IQ midwits to make them feel smart.
Dont go near a pound, dog fricker
Used to watch his channel since he seemed to give genuinely thoughtful reviews but every "good" movie he reviewed that Ive watched were so disappointing - Everything, Everywhere, All at once, Climax, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, just turned out to be boring dogshit. He has bad tastes in movies.
He's been mocked for his bad taste for so many years he clearly now just holds back until he can give a safe opinion with a smattering of his dogshit(pni) observations.
He posted a picture of himself getting fricked in the ass by a Black person
That's more intimacy than 99.9% of this site will ever have
>still no The Flash review
Booo! I wanted to see him dunk on that movie.
he rapes dogs btw
doubt it. he's a bottom