actually some vampire lore states that a vampire turned that young would retain the impulsiveness and the mind of a child and therefore they cannot consent
impulsiveness does not correlate to being unable to consent. children can't consent because they have less understanding about the world and because their brains arent even formed well enough to understand it to that degree and are easily manipulatable. impulsive adhd people can still understand everything, unlike a kid, we just are also impulsive.
Sure, okay. So let's be consequentialists here. 3000 year old with the body of an 8 year old as a fetish generally would mean that if acted on the victims would be fairly defenseless. Someone plays bg3 and genuinely wants to fuck a bear, if acted on the perpetrator would die a horrific death and the would be victim would carry on its day. There is no realistic scenario where someone is gonna fuck a bear, so who cares if they want to?
no that "3000 year old vampire" can't consent because it's still a child despite the writer inflating their age so they can excuse their pedophilia. in a similar way we can tell if the baldurs gate bear is beastiality or not by seeing if it looks and acts like a bear or looks and acts like a person who is a bear.
if it didn't act like a child AND didn't look like a child. so basically if the only resemblance to a child would be superficial like height or something. Plus the human recognition system for bears is less powerful than our recognition for children so you have to change a bear less for you to not think of it as a full on bear.
the equivalent to a bear that didn't look like a bear and didn't act like a bear would be like if there was a deep voiced fully sapient charmander someone fucked. still really weird but not really comparable to pedophilia (and notice that this example is entirely different from a kid to the point of being a fictional species that bears (FUCK) little resemblance to human beings, while with a "bear-but-not-a-bear", you only have to do something like make it a furry for it to not register as just a real bear)
hopefully this doesn't sound too weird. I'm not really defending the Baldur's gate bear fucking because it looks way to realistic and, well, bear-like.
tldr bear fuckers () can't get away with bullshit excuses as easily as pedophiles () because bear fuckers can only sexualize just like a straight up bear for it to be a bear, while pedo writers can sexualize anything bearing () childlike qualities and still be sexualizing a kid, albeit while trying to hide it so people don't realize how fucked up they are
should I delete my comments? I really don't want to defend libertarian shit even if it's an accidental defense. I don't think it was defending it but I'm worried now
If it gives you peace of mind yes. I don't think anyone was trying to call you an awful person (At least I wasn't) but both of these things are awful for the same reason so it isn't the most clean thing to argue about without going into libertain shit.
It does have sentience and can consent though because it's actually an adult(better be) hooman that can shapeshift. So I get it, but it IS different.
But idk how quickly you could explain that to someone who caught you jerking it to the cutscene, who's trying to leave ASAP.
So can the 3000 year old vampire with the body of an 8 year old.
As an adult with ADHD, does that mean I can't consent? My gf will be very upset to learn she's been taking advantage of me
seems like the more important part
impulsiveness does not correlate to being unable to consent. children can't consent because they have less understanding about the world and because their brains arent even formed well enough to understand it to that degree and are easily manipulatable. impulsive adhd people can still understand everything, unlike a kid, we just are also impulsive.
This is a very reasonable response to what I thought was an obvious joke
do not underestimate a thread started by the nerd emoji
You can say it's furry porn? The other is probably gonna get you elected president?
someone who tries to pass off literal beastiality as furry porn is a really horrific idea Jesus Christ
He can also wildshape into a badger, but Hexbear isn't ready for that conversation
"feral" will never beat the allegations
death to feral
Sure, okay. So let's be consequentialists here. 3000 year old with the body of an 8 year old as a fetish generally would mean that if acted on the victims would be fairly defenseless. Someone plays bg3 and genuinely wants to fuck a bear, if acted on the perpetrator would die a horrific death and the would be victim would carry on its day. There is no realistic scenario where someone is gonna fuck a bear, so who cares if they want to?
no that "3000 year old vampire" can't consent because it's still a child despite the writer inflating their age so they can excuse their pedophilia. in a similar way we can tell if the baldurs gate bear is beastiality or not by seeing if it looks and acts like a bear or looks and acts like a person who is a bear.
So in your mind if the three thousand year old child didn't act like a child...
if it didn't act like a child AND didn't look like a child. so basically if the only resemblance to a child would be superficial like height or something. Plus the human recognition system for bears is less powerful than our recognition for children so you have to change a bear less for you to not think of it as a full on bear.
the equivalent to a bear that didn't look like a bear and didn't act like a bear would be like if there was a deep voiced fully sapient charmander someone fucked. still really weird but not really comparable to pedophilia (and notice that this example is entirely different from a kid to the point of being a fictional species that bears (FUCK) little resemblance to human beings, while with a "bear-but-not-a-bear", you only have to do something like make it a furry for it to not register as just a real bear)
hopefully this doesn't sound too weird. I'm not really defending the Baldur's gate bear fucking because it looks way to realistic and, well, bear-like.
tldr bear fuckers (
) can't get away with bullshit excuses as easily as pedophiles (
) because bear fuckers can only sexualize just like a straight up bear for it to be a bear, while pedo writers can sexualize anything bearing (
) childlike qualities and still be sexualizing a kid, albeit while trying to hide it so people don't realize how fucked up they are
should I delete my comments? I really don't want to defend libertarian shit even if it's an accidental defense. I don't think it was defending it but I'm worried now
If it gives you peace of mind yes. I don't think anyone was trying to call you an awful person (At least I wasn't) but both of these things are awful for the same reason so it isn't the most clean thing to argue about without going into libertain shit.
https://youtu.be/oLveqRDZ9gs. About that...
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: