What is Sup Forums's opinion on YMS?

What is Sup Forums's opinion on YMS?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=X1nnNz_Tewk
theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/14/why-dont-humans-have-a-penis-bone-scientists-may-now-know-baculum
youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#B_causes_A_.28reverse_causation_or_reverse_causality.29
twitter.com/AnonBabble

He has sex with innocent animals

What a vile man

is that Adam Johnston from YMS (your movie sucks) who fucks animals?

yes.

Seems like a creepy loser, I enjoyed his videos about the Saw series though. Those were pretty good desu.

Yes, that's Adam Johnston, a dog rapist, from YMS.org.

Yes that's Adam Johnston from YMS (YourDogSucksMyCockdotORG) who is a bestiality loving hipsterfuck

Cringeworthy, unfunny, no taste, entire gimmick is forced nitpicks which are often incorrect.

DUDE I just found the FUNNIEST bad movie ever, a total UNINTENTIONAL COMEDY, can this be a meme guys? methinks this is the next 'The Room'! Watch it in a room full of DRUNK homosexual FURRY friends and you will have an epic time LMAO!

I can't watch his videos without thinking about all the depraved shit he undoubtedly does with pudgy nerds in dim rooms during furry conventions.

This is the face of someone that rapes dogs.

Is this just conjecture, or is there actual evidence for this.

youtube.com/watch?v=X1nnNz_Tewk

I know his views on it, but has he done it himself?

He's just saying that because Adam is a confirmed leaf.

Have you not seen this video at all?

>Annoying voice
>Furry
>A FUCKING LEAF
>Pleb opinions

daily reminder that yms defends these "people"

...

Well he's not wrong, being shocked by someone fucking a goat but having no problems with butchering it and eating it is hypocritical.
And saying "animals can't consent to sex" as a defense, but thinking they can consent to being killed and eaten? So you either accept that animals are property, tools and lesser beings and humans can do what they like with them, kill them, eat them or even fuck them, or accept that animals have rights and don't do any of those things.

This is still conjecture.

>jewish parents had to kill their own babies during WWII so nazis wouldn't hear the cries and kill them all
>killing a baby to survive is thereby justified
>so fucking babies is also justified and if you disagree you're a hypocrite

What if the animal consents?

>conjecture
Except it's not. In his video, he goes into great depth detail wise, and you can see that he has some experience with it.

How would the animal do that?

But animals can not consent to sex, since we have no means to communicate with them fully. There's a significant difference between killing animals food wise, and fucking them for pleasure, especially when they can't even give their consent for the act itself.

This argument doesn't even make sense.

>jewish parents had to kill their own babies during WWII so nazis wouldn't hear the cries and kill them all
>had to
You see when your argument falls apart at the beginning of your sentence means you shouldn't even start to argue in the first place

Sup Forums just hates him because reddit loves him.

All he said was if you arnt a vegan you shouldnt care about people fucking animals because things like veal is made by being cruel to animals.

TLDR eating a cow or putting a dick in it are both mean

actually that's a leap in logic that you word to sound like hypocrisy.

All ethics stem from self-preservation, our survival logic.
For example "women and children first".
In the modern day there's no reason why women and children should be prioritized for safety, why would a woman or child's life be worth more than a full grown man's?
But still the moral remains, because it's part of humanity and our original survival rationale.
This is also part of globalization, originally ethics only applied to our tribes, then our regions, countries and now the world over.
To get back to the point, killing another species has always been part of our survival rationale, but sex with them never has.
It serves no purpose and normally doesn't naturally occur to humans.
It still happens of course, you can find lots of videos of dogs and chimps fucking other animals online.
But it's not the normal response and in terms of survival it offers no benefit.

That is why there is no spill over in terms of morality, killing for food does not make bestiality okay just because death is worse than rape.

That's just for the memes. I, as do many others, hate him because his taste is garbage and he hasn't seen any of the quintessential older films that are required to fully appreciate it. Also, have you seen his IMDb list?

You are literally giving me the dictionary definition of conjecture.

>Sexual gratification from an obtuse fetish is equal to the essential sustenance mankind requires to survive

>But animals can not consent to sex
They can't consent to anything, including being eaten.
>There's a significant difference between killing animals food wise, and fucking them for pleasure
Unless you're living on a more or less self-sustaining farm or live in the wilderness and survive off hunting and actually need to kill your own animals for food, there is no difference.
I'm sure people buy juicy steaks, hamburgers and bacon do so because they just have too, they would die otherwise, not because it tastes good and gives them PLEASURE.

Why is every Canadian on the internet so fucking retarded?

I find him entertaining. Not someone I'd hang out with, he is clearly a degenderate dog fucker, but he is entertaining which is all I care about when it comes to fags on youtube.

>"BUT MOM, OTHERS DO IT SO WHY SHOULDN'T I?!"

Humans are omnivores, our physiology is fined tuned to ingest both plants and flesh.
That's why eating animals is morally justified.

Similarly the human penis evolved to not have a bone in it because humans are monogamous, which is why adultery and polygamy is seen as morally unjustified.

>killing for food does not make bestiality okay just because death is worse than rape.
Yes your argument makes sense when you completely ignore the point that 99% of people in modern western society eat primarily for pleasure, not survival. For example, there's objectively no difference from eating a normal adult cow, and a baby cow, you can survive from both just fine (if you ignore that you get way more food from adult cows), but people still CHOOSE to kill baby cows because eating their meat gives them PLEASURE. They don't kill them because they're literally starving and can't wait for cows to mature, they do it purely for pleasure. So yeah, you can't argue that's any different than fucking a cow for pleasure.

You missed the point in the post.
I explained that morals are derived from our base survival rationale.
You're saying we don't need to eat animals anymore so we shouldn't.
Well our population is more than sustainable now, so by your logic we shouldn't try to preserve a child's life over a woman's or a woman's life over a man's.

>humans
>monogamous

KEK

we've literally evolved to be monogamous, which is why we don't have penis bones like animals who fuck multiple partners simultaneously.

If you're a slut, swinger or cuck you're scientifically a poor example of what a human is supposed to be.

>evolved to be monogamous

YMS is more popular than RLM..

Really makes you think.

yep, apes have very small penis bones, animals that frequently have sex with multiple partners have quite large penis bones.

He literally hasn't seen anything pre-1990. Embarrassing.

>You're saying we don't need to eat animals anymore so we shouldn't.
No I'm not. I not only eat animals, I frequently decapitated chickens as a kid for food and helped kill pigs, and would do it again if I lived in the country and could afford to own chickens.
I'm just sick of whiny manbabies who think they can tell you want you can and can't do with your own property, which animals are.

>eating meat is a pleasure
>if something's absence doesn't kill you then it is a luxury
>this somehow proves eating meat is no different than raping an animal

you really wew'd my lad

The guy finally saw Citizen Kane last week.

Correlation ≠ Causation.

why does it take him so long to make videos, besides the fact that hes probably always fucking dogs

I'm not telling anyone what to do.
I'm just explaining that there's a leap in logic when you say killing animals for consumption justifies bestiality.
He and possibly you see it as hypocrisy but the two are not in the same criteria, morality isn't just about severity it's largely contextual.
Just because something that is okay can be perceived as more sever than something traditionally taboo doesn't make the later also okay.

really does make you think

correlation implies causation ya goof

The "quality"

how many people is the split up between with rlm though?

theguardian.com/science/2016/dec/14/why-dont-humans-have-a-penis-bone-scientists-may-now-know-baculum
The current scientific theory is that it is though.

Surely you cannot be this retarded.

I've seen it for the first time last year, but I'm 18. He even thinks of himself quite highly, so that's even more laughable on his account.

>I'm just explaining that there's a leap in logic when you say killing animals for consumption justifies bestiality.
You're still ignoring the fact that people these days don't eat for "consumption", but for pleasure. You have no right condemning somebody fucking an animal for pleasure while you eat bacon for pleasure.

Dude making a 5 minute videos where you ramble over a looping trailer is hard!

Please enjoy the next 40 minute video where I go scene by scene through a "funny" bad movie explaining why every line of dialogue is bad! DUDE A FUCKING CHAIRLIFT I CAN'T BELIEVE IT THIS MOVIE IS BONKERS!!

I bet you could buy up a whole animal shelter with $2800 a month.

Degenerate furry faggot who'll be first to hang on the day of the rope.

...

>You're still ignoring the fact that people these days don't eat for "consumption", but for pleasure.
But I never ignored that.
Read my posts again.
I have been explaining to you that the current status quo, that we do not NEED flesh for food does not necessarily matter.
Morals all have a survivalist source, that's why morals are not inherently human and why a lot of our morality seems irrelevant today.

As if he doesn't have fake subscribers that he was taught how to do by his 'friend' TJ

>You have no right condemning somebody fucking an animal for pleasure while you eat bacon for pleasure.
How the fuck do you know I eat shit like bacon for pleasure you faggot?

Gily > Brie

Pseudo intellectual freak that wants to fucks dogs. Terrible movie taste too. He thinks Kill Bill is one of the greatest movies ever

Reminder that he considers his reviews art.

You might be right, and you might not.

This isn't why adultery is seen as morally wrong though. That is purely cultural.

>beginning of settlements and civilization
>notice there is a correlation between living near still water and people dying of diseases
>start draining swamps
>prosper
>centuries later scientists understand how diseases work
>they prove causation between bacteria accumulation in non salty still water

I know you do because all useless fat fucks are the same, and would starve to death if you actually had to kill your own food.

>that we do not NEED flesh for food does not necessarily matter.
We do actually need it, at least most people, the thing is we don't need SPECIFIC meat 99.9% of the time, yet people still choose to eat that meat instead of something else purely because of pleasure. It's the main reason burgers sell way more than pig snouts,cow tongues and horse sirloins.
So if you choose to kill and eat a baby cow instead of a grown cow just because veal tastes good and gives you pleasure, you're no less "morally right" than somebody who fucks that calf.

either you can't read or don't understand what veal is.

there is literally nothing wrong with being a furry or a faggot or hung by a rope

Am I being baited? A correlation does not imply causation. This is like statistics 101.

Obviously a correlation CAN have a causal relationship, but it doesn't HAVE to.

For example, Ice cream sales increase in summer. Humans killed by sharks increase in summer. Do Ice cream sales and shark deaths have a causal relationship? Of course not.

>Eating young animals is wrong, it's OK if we wait a few years though

you dont eat a cow while its still alive, and we dont need fucking goat aids getting spread around either

not him but you just proved yourself wrong in your own example.
Ice cream sales increase in the summer.
Does that mean the sales are related to the season?
If you say yes then you're saying correlation implies causation.

>Am I being baited?
no you are just an idiot and he is a bit obtuse

Is that dog spooge?

He does porn videos now

>when you argue the answer you've accepted the conclusion

why is it a given that killing animals is immoral?

raping a dog is immoral because you are causing unnecessary suffering to pleasure yourself, meaning you're a sadist and a bad citizen for the social contract.

It takes less then three minutes to tie a sheep's legs, roll it on its side and cut its throat and bleeding it out. The result is beneficial to people.

I don't see how it is immoral to kill animals unless you are cruel to them, like tying them to posts for their lives and so on and so on

lmao furfag

opnions are automatically discarded

Wow, you guys are really this stupid huh?

youtube.com/watch?v=fm2W0sq9ddU

ice creams sales increase because temperature has increased

people go to shark infested waters because the temperature has increased

temperature increases when suns rays fall on earth in more acute angles. we call this period of time summer

each correlation implies causation ya goof

Look at 1954 rating. What a loser.

yeah you sure showed us

what is it with these new porn videos where a thicc chick fucks a diminutive guy and manhandles him? I'm not complaining, but it's a weird trend

Go home Adam, you're not wanted here.

YES BUT THERE IS A CONFOUNDING VARIABLE.

THERE IS NO DIRECT CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN SHARK ATTACKS AND ICE CREAM SALES.

HOLY SHIT. CONGRATS ON THE BAIT BECAUSE IT FUCKING WORKED LIKE A CHARM, I AM OUT.

this

...

you're really jumping through hoops trying to justify your "open relationship"

of course there isn't because implication isn't a proof. but even in your example the correlations have implied causation. this is not difficult at all what are you stumbling on?

>why is it a given that killing animals is immoral?
Says who?
>raping a dog is immoral because you are causing unnecessary suffering to pleasure yourself
Same thing as with deliberately choosing to kill a calf or drown a just because it taste good, or choosing to eat a live octopus instead of killing it first. The main motivation is pleasure, not survival.
>The result is beneficial to people.
Are you saying that the release of male sexual tension isn't beneficial to people? Why do you think that almost every single army in history had a trail of prostitutes following them so the soldiers could get "relief" when ever they needed it?

>I don't see how it is immoral to kill animals unless you are cruel to them
I don't see how it's immoral to kill them any way you want, since they're your property, just like I don't see how it's wrong to fuck them.
So you either accept that animal lives can be used for human pleasure, that includes food and sex, or accept that they can't and don't do it. But don't stand in the middle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation#B_causes_A_.28reverse_causation_or_reverse_causality.29

Yes, I know it's wikipedia, but I suggest you do some research.

you are implying everything that isn't for survival is for pleasure which isn't obvious at all.

If you can't see the difference between slaughtering an animal as quickly as possible to eat it and torturing an animal for whimsical pleasure i don't know what to tell you.

>what does "implication" mean?
>what does "isn't a" signify?
>what does "proof" mean?

it was claimed that correlation doesn't imply causation, i demonstrated it does and added an implication isn't a proof and now you are showing me that implication isn't proof

jeez

What you're not getting is that correlation doesn't imply a causation at all.

>If you can't see the difference between slaughtering an animal as quickly as possible to eat it and torturing an animal for whimsical pleasure i don't know what to tell you.
You're the one arguing that torturing animals for fun (which is what most mass produced meat is these days, regardless of what the food industry propaganda is trying to serve you) is different than fucking them for fun.

i'm a sunni muslim man, i don't eat meat that were produced by cruel means. I know and seen and participated in slaughtering sheeps and calfs. Doing it properly isn't torture, it is done very quickly and painlessly