I’m not the one using the same arguments as bigots shrugs

I think there are arguments you could make that would be better than the ones you’re actually making but you’re not making those arguments. And the ones you are making are pretty bad. I’m just pointing that out.

You keep using that word incorrectly though “involving” and yes, it is like those because when gay men showed affection in public they were accused of “involving” the public in their “perversion”

This is considered whistleblowing these days?

Meh, not super invested, just wouldn’t really mind if I somehow found out someone was wearing a toy in public. If anything I’m a little weirded out by how much you seem to be obsessed with marking the sexual behavior of others as immoral when it’s not actually hurting anyone. Kind of reminds me of Republican anti gay talking points from the 90s

This show any good?

I don’t secretly masturbate around people. You are mistaking a philosophical argument for actual behavior.

I think the argument about it being a mentally unhealthy activity to do that causes harm to the one doing it is a much stronger argument, granted I don’t think it is universally true that that is the case, I would definitely agree it is harmful a majority of the time to a majority of the people who do it.

But I would also say at this point we then have to ask if self harm is immoral, I think that we are no longer in the realm of morality any more and more in the realm of harm reduction seeing as while it is not generally good to harm yourself (mentally or otherwise) calling it immoral also seems incorrect. It’s bad, but not for moral reasons?

First of all, under my moral framework which I already described the coma example would be very morally wrong because you are doing something TO someone, which I have already said is my dividing line. Which makes it functionally different than anything else we’ve discussed and therefore not a good comparison.

Secondly when it comes to the sleeping stranger there’s also a difference, you are running a very high risk of traumatizing them which also would fall into the doing something TO someone category and therefore be morally wrong even if it’s only based on probability, you are risking immoral outcomes for pleasure which is fucked up.

But if you’re just wearing a sex toy you’re not doing anything to anyone except yourself as there’s no risk someone decides to randomly strip search you in public and if they did that would put THEM in the wrong. Do you see the difference now? Getting off to other people isn’t the same as doing something to them, you aren’t actually physically involving them because they aren’t forced in any way to interact with what is happening.

Your next argument is about being physically there having a moral quality to it so now you have to define physically there, for example, would it be ok if they were in the next room? Is that still “physically there”? Is it a line of sight thing? If you can see them it’s wrong but if you can’t then it’s ok? You must make a choice here where you either claim all masturbation is wrong if you’re thinking about real people or you must find a way to describe “being physically there” that excludes masturbating while thinking about someone but includes all possible ways of being “physically there”

This is fundamentally an impossible task as being “physically there” is a gradient spectrum concept, you can measure it in physical distance, for example how many meters away someone is, you can measure it by sight/sound, or by conceptual ‘thereness’ which is probably the closest to what you’re actually trying to describe but far too vague to be useful which is the problem you’re running into here, for example I will assume that you would also oppose to someone masturbating to a video feed of another person who is unaware yes? Even if that individual is on the other side of the planet, they are still being ‘physically involved’ albeit indirectly if you use a general concept of ‘thereness’.

The thing is I think you’re also conflating harm to the other person and the mental state of the acting individual, if someone is doing something like that then it’s generally safe to say that they are not engaging in mentally healthy behavior yes? It is generally not mentally healthy to masturbate to live video of people unaware you can see them even though it doesn’t harm those people yes?

But something being bad for you to do because it is harmful to the way you view other people and something being bad to do because it harms those other people directly are two different things and I think you are treating both as the same thing in your arguments here without realizing that’s what you’re doing.

can you define “physically involving another person”

On a physical level sure, but on a moral level I’d be interested to hear your reasoning. I don’t even really have a horse in this race since it’s not something I do or have any interest in doing but it seems pretty obvious that this doesn’t really harm anyone, you’re not forcing anyone to do anything, you’re not doing anything TO anyone, and unless they take your clothes off they won’t know,

masturbation: getting off while thinking about someone in another room this:getting off while thinking about someone in the same room

if the only difference is proximity then what even is your argument considering proximity has no moral dimension?

So does masturbation usually. I think you need a more detailed explanation of what actually makes a thing wrong and where that line is.

Important to note that reddit and nearly all algorithmic social media measures look time so if you stop scrolling even for a split second when you see something it shows you more of that thing.

I don’t think this actually is the line though, take masturbation for example, most folk masturbate to other people they know, technically this is involving others in a sexual way without consent but it’s considered completely ok and normal because ultimately you’re not doing anything TO them.

Same with wearing a buttplug in public, is it kinda strange? Yeah, sure, you can even say it’s offputting and I would at least in some cases agree, but on a moral level you’re not doing anything TO anyone, that’s in my eyes the real line, if they don’t know and have no way of knowing then it’s not really causing harm.

Compare it to say flashing strangers in public, now you’re doing something TO people, without consent and that is bad.

Same way you go around assuming most people aren’t wearing vibrators and butt plugs in public, because some definitely do but it’s probably best not to make negative assumptions about people.

Personally though I don’t even mind if people do kink in public so long as on a functional level it’s not noticeable or at risk of making others uncomfortable.

I’m not denying SOME of it is sexual, but what you’re doing is assuming that MOST or ALL of it is sexual, which is both wrong and also the result of cognitive biases and a good example of why extrapolation from anecdotes is a bad idea especially when it’s fueled by confirmation bias

Everybody has preferences, it’s not immoral to have different preferences than someone else, fetishizing is harmful when it causes you to stop treating someone like a person and instead treat them as an object.

Because A: there are no actual furries irl to be harmed and B: most of the fandom is actually very invested in who their characters are as people

I think that argument falls flat, I brought up aliens to counter the argument you made next about animals already existing. Because no animals on earth can talk. Furries might have animal characteristics but conceptually they are closer to aliens than animals unless you only care about visuals.

The costumes(with some exceptions) are just costumes though, not everyone who has a fursuit is even into the kinky stuff, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions and generalizations. It’s not all sexual.

If anything you might be the one oversexualizing here

If aliens came to earth would you object to people hooking up with them?

what are you on about

No, that’s literally just capitalism.

Anarchism and capitalism are antithetical to each other, capitalism is a system of capital ownership that creates economic heirarchy.

Heirarchy and anarchy are mutually exclusive polar opposites.