Fuk yeah Womcow!!!
zipman68
the speed force!
Whut u thank if sum biologie company take DNA frum a womyn and mak an animal jus like dat womyn but only just a smart as a heifer. Butt not all fat an disgusting lik a real heefer. Letz call da beyotch a womcow. Wood it be cool to make da womcowz? Shood da lawz treet da womcowz like real cowa? Wood u fuk a womcow? Wood u giv a fuk if da womcowz gots all scare o hurt or sheet or if sik fuks wanna C-I-L-L da womcowz on da vidz? Wood yo beyotch kickz ya ta da kurb if ya fukd a womcow?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
12 comments
www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=21200
To respond to ilbbaicnl's queries....
Womcow
Posted December 30, 2012 (Last Comment: December 31, 2012)
Suppose an advanced biotech company could take the DNA of any woman and create an organism exactly like her, but with the intelligence and docility of a cow.
-- Strange premise...but OK, I'll indulge in the thought experiment.
For convenience, let's call this "being" a womcow. Would it be ethical to create womcows?
-- No (see below for reasons)
Should womcows have the same status under the law as livestock?
-- No, since it would indulge sick fucks who might want to do similar things to real women.
Would you want to have sex with a womcow?
-- Would you want to have sex with an unconscious woman? Wait...don't answer...don't want to know. For me, another negatory.
Would it bother you if what you did to the womcow caused it fear or discomfort?
-- Yes. We don't intentionally scare cattle either (except for sick fucks). Of course, some of that reflects the fact that stress hormones can negatively impact meat flavor in the case of cattle. But still.
Would it bother you if you caused a womcow pain?
-- Yes. See answer above about sick fucks.
Would it be OK to make snuff films with womcows?
-- No. Even if done painlessly it might encourage sick fucks who would ultimately want to do sick shit to real women.
If you have an SO, do you think she would break up with you for having sex with a womcow?
-- Yes. If she didn't there would be something a little off about my SO.
And now a question from me...WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU SMOKING DUDE???
Stripping, especially with extras, is a hard, hard job, and it seems to correlate very strongly with bad life outcomes. I don't see any sense in thinking that patronizing a stripper is more ethical than patronizing a womcow. It's like thinking that riding in a rickshaw is more ethical than riding in a horse-drawn carriage.
‘The Ultimate Strip Club List
More than a list. It's the evocation of a culture.’
to make sure I hadn’t clicked on another website in a ‘senior moment’.
Boys and girls, are we getting bored because are ATFs and CF are on vacation?
Ilbby fancies himself as a ‘critical thinker’ but commits several fallacies.
Mikey says: “strippers are girls, cows are animals, there is no such thing as womcows, and riding a rickshaw has nothing to do with being ethical.â€
Ilbby replies: “have you rejected the use of abstract thought to SHOW YOUR SOLIDARITY WITH WOMCOWS?†[And Mikey is right about sci-fi. Among others both Isaac Asimov in his robot novels and Star Trek’s character, Commander Data examine what it means to be human.]
That’s an ad hominem fallacy; attacking the person not the person’s argument.
‘Attacking a person, rather than the person’s position or argument, is usually easier as well as psychologically more satisfying to those who divide the world into two classes of people—those who agree with them and are therefore good and right, and those who disagree with them and are therefore evil and wrong.
The ad hominem is attractive to lazy thinkers, who would rather ridicule or belittle a person than seriously examine an opposing viewpoint....
One of the most frequent types of ad hominem attack is to attack the arguer's ALLEGED MOTIVES rather than his evidence.†SketicsDictionary
Ilbby, zip provides some specific counter-examples, perfectly acceptable in critical thinking but you do another ad hominem. You attack his motives rather than answering his counter-examples. Not a very good demo of your beloved critical, abstract thinking.
Then you go on to commit another fallacy, that of the false analogy or false equivalence. Womcows, strippers, and rickshaw drivers are equated because you (falsely) assume these three groups share enough similarities and very few dissimilarities making you conclusion about ethically using each appear true.
Unfortunately, “The justification of an inference based on analogical reasoning depends on the number and strength of known similarities and dissimilarities of the items being compared. If there are very few known similarities or if there are a few known very great dissimilarities, then drawing inferences based on the comparison is unjustified. The result is a false analogy.†SkepticsDictionary.
Womcows are a sketchily drawn hypothetical that appear to be less intelligent and more docile than humans [unsupported assumptions about cows]. One key potential similarity is [unsupported assumption] womcows possessing ‘free will’ and the capability of informed, freely given consent. No matter what some members think strippers and rickshaw drivers as humans possess these qualities.
Ilbby, in this post you seem to be a perfect example of the adage: ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.’ Ilbby, check out this website and post your thoughts on websites dedicated to critical thinking for good feedback to sharpen your skills not on a website dedicated to all manner of salacious activity with naked ladies. http://austhink.com/critical/
Now, can we get back to having fun?
OK, OK...back to things that exist in the real world (or the Star Trek world...'cos those Vulcan strip clubs are off da hook!! All logical on the outside but pon farr 24/7 on the inside...can I have a whut whut!!!)
To be fair, I think Mike's point was more that he finds this topic very pointless. An opinion he is entirely entitled to. I just think he's wrong to think it's PROVEN pointless just because very hypothetical.
Many men (and lowpaws) sorely want to hump or at least make out with certain women, but the feeling is not mutual. Strip clubs are one way to address this problem. But strip clubs have a bad side effect. Strippers have problems pair-bonding successfully. Many or most of them might have problems pair-bonding anyway, but if the stripping environment didn't exist, they probably would have a better chance of overcoming these problems. And, while human beings have a bad tendency to be demeaning to each other, strip clubs seem to have much more than their fair share of demeaning behavior.
I thought people would be interested in looking at an alternative to strip clubs, one that may become technologically feasible within the next 50-100 years. I don't understand why you all think is obviously more ethical to have paid sex with a woman than to have sex with an animal (that resembles a woman). Forcing amorous attentions on an animal is mild compared to other things we routinely do to animals.
As strip club patrons, I think we have a special responsibility to support the availability of vocational training and substance abuse therapy to everyone. Ethically it's important that the twenty-something we're groping really had realistic, decent options not to be there. The result may very well be that LDs and P4P become luxuries none of us could afford (due to the lack of dancers/escorts). Then we'll be anxious for androids or biotech to do something about our blue-balls. Or, maybe we'll just have to take anti-testosterone pills or something.
BTW cows are totally tangential here. I only brought cows into it cause I thought the made-up word "womcow" sounded funny.