Please don't... unless😉
Lol seriously? Are you trying to brag about that? That will never be the same. Try all you want. Doll you partner up in a head to toe Zootopia Bunny fursuit. It's still just your partner in a fursuit.
You can close your eyes and pretend it's Lt. Judy Hopps whose fur you're digging your nails into. But it's not. It's some stupid human in a costume. And no human will ever be able to scratch the itch you're trying to reach.
You think you're better than us virgins because you can ever so temporarily convince yourself you have access to a fantasy we both know you don't? Pathetic.
You have a choice to make right now. Good or evil. Nirvāṇa or Saṃsāra. Either accept volcelibacy, and with it the truth that your fantasy of fucking like rabbits will never come to literal fruition, or go back to your lies and have fun falling asleep every night fighting tears as you catch a glimpse of your wife's silhouette in bed and realize it will never sprout bunny ears.
Found this cursed post in the chapo archives, now you all get to see it
Some posted the "top" comments to r/copypasta so it's still on reddit even
Everybody freeze, the volcel police are on the scene! We're shutting this pervert party down! Anybody caught trying to fuck the bunny cop will be sentenced to the horny re-education camps!
to be faiiiiiiirrrrrrr, fucking an actual rabbit is bad and you should feel bad if you do.
wrong, it is possible to hold a moral position which condemns bestiality whilst also being ok with some if not all forms of using rabbits for dietary consumption. no, i will not explain. the vegan struggle session is tiresome af and i need at least another hour of drinking before work tomorrow.
that would be like holding the moral position that its wrong to rape people but not to murder them
its just poorly thought out.
Implying there are not circumstances where murder is ok.
that is correct, there are no circumstances where murder is okay. there are various reasons you might need to kill, but I wouldn't describe any of them as murder.
The words we use for non-consensual killing are entirely context based. there is no meaningful difference between any of them except whether the person choosing what word to use thinks it was justified. Also, killing an innocent person in cold blood is murder period. there are still circumstances where this ok because it causes more good\prevents more harm than not doing so.
killing an innocent person in cold blood is murder period. there are still circumstances where this ok
I do not agree. You will never in your life be faced with a circumstance where you need to murder someone to save 2 other people unless you actually live in a trolley problem comic strip. It's fun to think about, but it has nothing to do with the real world.
- even if it does not happen does not mean it can't theoretically happen. If there is a non-zero chance of it happening, the consideration of the moral implications involved in it are real and due to our inability to know the future the consideration of real possibilities is completely valid no matter how unlikely.
- wrong, just wrong. Would insert evil adult of your choice be doing evil things they do if they had been murdered as an innocent infant? no. greater good achieved.
- inb4 response about how we wouldn't know they would turn out evil part one: the morality of a thing is entirely determined by outcome. 4: real life trolley problems do exist. Additionally, They don't need to save two lives to exist. You are faced with saving a child or an elderly person: who do you save? Unless said elderly person is valuable to humanity on a significant level the child is the only moral answer on who to save because death costs them significantly more.
even if it does not happen does not mean it can’t theoretically happen
dont care, we're not in a formal debate, "that situation would never come up so im not interested in entertaining it" is a valid response
Would insert evil adult of your choice be doing evil things they do if they had been murdered as an innocent infant?
you're not a time traveler, you cant kill baby hitler to stop him from doing genocide. this can be dismissed for the same reason as the trolley problem
the morality of a thing is entirely determined by outcome.
if you kill baby hitler the outcome is that you have murdered a random baby. since you're not a time traveler you have no way of telling that this was a positive for anyone. you're just a baby murderer, which i would call generally a negative thing.
You are faced with saving a child or an elderly person: who do you save? Unless said elderly person is valuable to humanity on a significant level the child is the only moral answer on who to save because death costs them significantly more.
What does that have to do with anything? Putting aside your personal opinion asserted as fact, so what?
so inserting your opinion that it cant happen is valid? either provide a base for this or stfu about opinion being vlaid or not. you dont need time travel, the fact that the hypothetical exits means the question exist which means that an answer exists. just because the answer is real and the implications thereof disagree with your position does not negate the reality of a potential scenario that requires an answer that opposes yours. the point of saving the young vs old hypothetical is to demonstrate that it is possible to quantify the relative value of lives. if it is possible to do so, then there exist scenarios histroical or hypothetical where the benefit of taking a life is greater than the cost of doing so or taking a different life.
historical example since you hate the concept of hypotheticals so much: killing the Romanov children. killing those kids was objectively good because it removed the possiblity of the restoration of the dynasty and severely handicapped movements based around doing so since they are no more of them to put on the throne.
wrong, i can onnly get off by if there is a compulsive boofing of Zaleplon involved. Don't be a prude
Ok but for real have we considered adding porn to this platform yet? I can't fully commit to the switch from reddit to here until I also have a place to discuss elder scrolls lore and then later whack it to the chick from Osmosis Jones fucking Reptar
I gotchu on the lore at least, I was too young to have anything awakend by that chick tho even tho i loved the movie.
Thalos CHIM'd, Lorkhan is based, Padomay > Anu, and the Thalmor aren't entirely wrong.... that should trigger some ES lore discussion for ya at least.
I personally wouldn't mind porn, but putting it on its own lemmy instance one the federation is working sounds like a good idea.
ok but what if you want to fuck the bunny cop and the other hot cartoon rabbit at the same time (nsfw)
There has gotta be a red pill of some sort about the sexualization of rabbits in media meant for children. Jessica Rabbit, cop rabbit, ect.... damn hollywood perverts are involved somehow even if its all coincidence.
rabbits have been sexualised for thousands of years, they were considered symbols of fertility by many cultures across the planet
If allowing people to sexually desire the bunny cop is a compromise I need to make for a working class coalition, then so be it.
What about that Fox from the cartoon that is also Robin Hood?
True praxis is being a selfish lover when fucking cops. Taking pleasure and giving them none. Every second they're fucking you is a second they aren't doing cop things. /s
