What's his best review?

What's his best review?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=X1nnNz_Tewk
youtube.com/watch?v=C29dofayfjo
youtube.com/watch?v=PlVnrtJrEh0
youtube.com/watch?v=pmaiBZe3TY4
youtube.com/watch?v=xg79mkbNaTg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

the shortest one

Room 237

...

his review of a dog cum

>a
>dog cum

the one where he stuck stuff in his pooper

all of them
even the quickies

Stop advertising your garbage in here, Adam. Nobody likes you, you dogfucker piece of shit.
Do we world a favor and get rabies.

Stop advertising your garbage in here, Adam. Nobody likes you, you dogfucker piece of shit.
Do we world a favor and get rabies.

Why the fuck did he fuck off with his life his strange prequel playthrough?

Is that Adam Johnston from YMS (YourDogSucksMyCockDOTorg) who is a dog rapist and enjoys bestiality?

but the dog consented

i dont think he actually has sex with dogs.
hes just a faggot who dresses as animals ang gets fucked in the ass which is harmless compared to teh statements above

The Cool Cat series

So how many dogs he raped?

3

yes it is, and what are your thoughts on his favourite films?

He said on his Reddit AMA that his friends fucked with animals.

>his friend

...

The one where he said there shouldn't be a problem if the dog enjoys it

the planet of the apes one where he complains about not being able to see the monkey dick.

youtube.com/watch?v=X1nnNz_Tewk
I'M CALLING THE POLICE

THe funny farting one where he farts a lot lol

I really like it when he just lets it rip faaarrrtttt

I don't remember that one

>fucking an animal isnt abusing the animal

WEW

I rate his longer ones where he bashes a genuinely shit movie like the Neil Breen ones or that Amusement one.

However, his babadook review his is most annoying and his rating system is fucked too.

>Amazing spider-man 2 and Apocalypse Now are the same rating
>Practically refuses to put anything lower than a 6 so awkwardly has his favourite films up amongst his most hated

I mean if you're having sex with a horse that desperately wants to fuck, chances are more likely that it's going to hurt you more then you hurt it.

The main factor in this argument hinges on the ability to consent. As animals are physically incapable of verbal consent, any act of sexual nature will be considered abuse.

Adum's argument is that by this logic, any sexual act between animals will be considered abuse, and non-verbal consent is acceptable from an animal. However he doesn't mention that animals have their own methods of communication (eg. mating calls) and language that have yet to be deciphered by a human being. And without that concrete confirmation it will still be regarded as abuse.

In conclusion, unless you're Dr. Dolittle, consent from an animal is unlikely going to happen.

>dude the star wars prequels suck lmao

great insight, unique opinion and approach

yes

You guys understand that he's just playing Devil's Advocate. He's a furry, but for horses and lizardmen mostly. And even then he doesn't like them animal-like, but anthropomorphic.

Just saying this because there's no reason this board shills Reddit Letter Media and hates this guy. Dogfucker is not an excuse, and even if it were, his taste in film is absolutely patrician.

>patrician
>his top100 has 1 (one) movie made before 1990

The initial argument is more hard to argue against.

Why does consent matter in this specific instance when gorging, injecting them with semen and torturing them is so important for the sake of meat but sexual consent is a paramount discussion when everything and anything we do concerning animals is against their consent or doesn't even consider the possibility that they can consent at all.

His point is fairly valid.

We can eat them willy nilly but touch penor and woah, suddenly the worst thing ever?

Breeding and killing an animal cannot be compared to fucking one.

We kill and and eat animals for a number of uses eg. Food and nourishment, clothing and make-up, medicine etc. There is a tangible purpose to this act.

The act of fucking one is purely nothing short of trying to bust a nut, just because that's what you like. There is no end result other than two creatures who committed a socially unacceptable act.

>>Breeding and killing an animal cannot be compared to fucking one.
Yes, in that being killed is several times worse then fucking or breeding one

A tangible purpose to a murder does not make consent from the person being murdered invalid.
If I'm your beneficiary and I kill you that doesn't make my murder any more valid, so why does consent not matter when there's a tangible purpose behind killing an animal.

Even if we did live in a world where animals could tangibly consent, these industries would still exist mind you, the animals wouldn't be given a voice at all because they're is a tangible gain and the system in place works against them.

You have more rights then an animal because the system benefits humans more, that's not to say animals don't matter but that humans have an inherent bias toward humans.

Animals live for their own self-preservation and procreation, their autonomy being secondary. don't you think taking that away their right to life would be substantially worse then fucking them against their will or taking advantage of their sexuality for a short time, that when taking their life, that if consent could matter in any situation regarding an animal, that their consent would be the most important point of that discussion rather than what can be gained.

>being killed is several times worse then fucking or breeding one
Some would argue to live through sexual abuse is more psychologically damaging, than being dead.
>A tangible purpose to a murder does not make consent from the person being murdered invalid
I'm unsure what you mean here. Are you saying the person being murdered can consent?
>If I'm your beneficiary and I kill you that doesn't make my murder any more valid
I'm a human, not an animal. I will defend myself.
>so why does consent not matter when there's a tangible purpose behind killing an animal.
The food chain is natural law. Consent is unnecessary. If it was, a lot of lions would be reprimanded by mother nature.
>Even if we did live in a world where animals could tangibly consent
It's unwise to argue with hypotheticals. I think if we discovered could talk, and even have names, it would be a shitstorm of political reform.
>You have more rights then an animal
You're right. Because humans are homogeneous, built civilization and are just smart in general.
>don't you think taking that away their right to life would be substantially worse then fucking them against their will or taking advantage of their sexuality for a short time
See points 1 and 4.

Unironically? The Walking Dead

>I mean if you're having sex with a horse that desperately wants to fuck
How the fuck would that ever happen?

>he hasn't been jumped on by a horse before

Give me proof of this happening.

youtube.com/watch?v=C29dofayfjo

>adam wants to fuck a dog
>isn't chinese
>doesn't want to fuck a cow

I need better evidence, the horse didn't even hump him.

>>Some would argue to live through sexual abuse is more psychologically damaging, than being dead.
A massive exaggeration especially for animals when for humans the idea of sexual abuse is glorified moreso then the act.

Even doubly so for an animal when some animals live through forms of mating that we would call sexual abuse.

>I'm unsure what you mean here. Are you saying the person being murdered can consent?
yes it has happened before, honor killings and assisted suicide are a thing, we would consider them murders in today's society but they're a real thing.
I can kill you with a gun before you defend yourself. it doesn't make you superior to an animal to me because I benefit from your death.
>The food chain is natural law. Consent is unnecessary. If it was, a lot of lions would be reprimanded by mother nature.
We don't need the natural law anymore, we can do things with food/clothing/medicine that weren't possible when natural law mattered the most to us.

Naturally speaking we'd never want to type on a computer or stare at a box for hours but here we are.
>It's unwise to argue with hypotheticals. I think if we discovered could talk, and even have names, it would be a shitstorm of political reform.
That literally does not matter. Animals aren't going to talk but we're discovering more and more about their intelligence all the time, caring about them politically hasn't become any less niche.

If you think animal rights would suddenly matter when a cow wants to be called Mooby when they only kind of matter now when they find that they actually do feel both pain and emotions that can be comparable to ours then you're incredibly naive or you're intentionally being dishonest. I can't tell which and I honestly don't care.

That pic is so disgusting, please stop posting it.

>You're right. Because humans are homogeneous, built civilization and are just smart in general.
Humans are only smart by human standards. A cat wouldn't see any point to building a civilization or doing what we do but it would see value in surviving optimally, procreating and raising it's young.

>See points 1 and 4.

No animals don't suffer from the psychological parts of abuse the same way humans do, there are none or very few animal rape survivors that need counseling, they're just normal animals,they're designed to get over trauma but they're not designed to be caged up and die for arbitrary reasons.

>I need better evidence

Oh, I bet you do.

5 minutes into Lion King and Chill and Adam gives your dog this look. Wyd?

You still haven't posted any evidence.

...

The After Earth review. His latest reviews have been pretty boring desu

Sometimes a horse will *wink* at you.

and it's a different kind of wink from pic related.

Dude.
youtube.com/watch?v=PlVnrtJrEh0

...

oh god no

I doubt you can even hurt a horse with a human dick. Vets put their whole arms in horse asses.

>A massive exaggeration especially for animals
Mental health exists in animals too. We haven't measured the effect of sexual abuse against animals so it being an exaggeration is conjecture on your part.
>some animals live through forms of mating that we would call sexual abuse
Natural law doesn't take objective morality into account. Some species might not survive if they didn't mate a particular way. Look at the low-test Panda.
>honor killings and assisted suicide are a thing
Death with varying degrees of consent, regulated by man-made law.
>I can kill you with a gun before you defend yourself.
Not sure how you'd benefit from my death. There's no context here.
>We don't need the natural law anymore
Are you serious? This is such a strawman argument I don't know where to begin with how wrong you are.
>We're discovering more and more about their intelligence
Yes, and for better or worse, hasn't changed the order of the food chain.
>you're incredibly naive or you're intentionally being dishonest.
I said there would be political reform, not acceptance sentient animals overnight. Remember, you're the one trying to sell me on the act of fucking an animal here.
>they're just normal animals,they're designed to get over trauma
Animals have their own grieving process. They don't follow the 5 stages of grief like we do. It should be assumed they view sexual activity differently as well.

>Mental health exists in animals too.
>>>>>>>especially for animals when for humans the idea of sexual abuse is glorified moreso then the act.
If you are raped and people know that about you that changes everything about. People are going to be thinking HOW you were raped and how bad it was, just being a victim of that rape becomes a part of your identity moving forward, will you keep it a secret? how much of it will you tell anyone? Should you seek counseling? These are questions people that have been sexually abused ask.

What does an animal ask?
...

It's an animal, it cares that the encounter didn't get it killed and it probably doesn't want it to happen again.


>Natural law doesn't take objective morality into account. Some species might not survive if they didn't mate a particular way. Look at the low-test Panda.

That's the point of what I'm saying, your morality doesn't apply to animals in situations where what they need to live through is substantially worse then your supposed abuse.

>Not sure how you'd benefit from my death. There's no context here.
>>If I'm your beneficiary and I kill you
You're retarded. I'm not sure why you think natural law matters for humans.

It has completely changed the food chain, cats are being introduced to parts of the world they shouldn't be, we keep pets that literally can not survive anywhere else but our homes.

I'm not trying to sell you anything, you're selling me why we should value an animals consent

post full comic

Still no evidence of people getting fucked by a horse.

Stop being retarded

His Synechdoche New York review is the best I've seen on the film but it isn't finished yet.

>Animals have their own grieving process. They don't follow the 5 stages of grief like we do. It should be assumed they view sexual activity differently as well.

If you're saying the legality of bestiality should be on a case by case basis while taking into account how the animal responds to human sexuality then yeah I'd agree with that.

look for a video called mr hands

A Dog's Purpose

>If you are raped and people know that about you that changes everything
>It's an animal, it cares that the encounter didn't get it killed and it probably doesn't want it to happen again
We're not talking about the effects of sexual abuse against humans because we already know the answer: don't rape humans. The main question here: Is a human having sex with an animal considered rape or consensual by default? And unfortunately their isn't enough information to give a definitive answer.
>morality doesn't apply to animals in situations where what they need to live through is substantially worse then your supposed abuse.
>By that logic, we can hurt animals left and right as long as they live and not expect repercussions by our fellow man.
>cats are being introduced to parts of the world they shouldn't be, we keep pets that literally can not survive anywhere else but our homes
Domesticated animals are another ball park. Stick to the argument.
>you're selling me why we should value an animals consent
If we kill animals outside of preservation purposes it is morally wrong, in a civilized world. For preservation, consent is unnecessary. If you fuck an animal outside of preservation purposes it is socially wrong, in a civilized world. Your attraction to animals is merely preference. You can't procreate with an animal.
>inb4 gays can't procreate
They can adopt
>inb4 animals can adopt humans
They can but they're feral and will have difficulty integrating into human society

No, but what is the result?

YOU are the one that brought them up as if they're comparable I'm pointing out to you that they are not, the rape of an animal is clearly not as bad because our society makes rape worse then it actually is.

>By that logic, we can hurt animals left and right as long as they live and not expect repercussions by our fellow man.

WOW it's like we don't do that already. but don't worry it's only okay to do that when you eat them afterwards.

>Domesticated animals are another ball park. Stick to the argument.
You're the one that brought up the food chain which is a substantially different argument as to whether or not people should kill animals for "clothing and make-up, medicine etc". Keep in mind we don't NEED to kill them as much as we used to, you can live as a normal healthy vegetarian anywhere that humans live, there's usually vegetables and farmers. We know this is possible so killing them for survival isn't a thing anymore in the 1st world.

We kill animals outside of preservation purposes all the time, we exterminate animals that only inconvenience us and we've exterminated entire species for fur/horn powder/trophies, all these things happen under the wings of a world that considers itself civilized. You live in that world and project how civilized you think it is onto it, meaning you aren't even a good judge of how civilized it is.

The procreation thing is nonsense btw., I think fucking a robot would be morally acceptable and consent is hazy even then.

depending on the robot of course, fucking wall-e would be weird but I'm not against the idea.

I love these threads, every single fucking time some degenerate redditor starts defending the dogfucker furry

The one where he fucked a dog, live, on stream for 3 hours.

We'll stop having these conversations when dogs stop being sexy.

So we'll never stop having these conversations.

He used to have a normal voice
youtube.com/watch?v=pmaiBZe3TY4

But now it sounds like his nose doesn't work. It's annoying to listen to

>the rape of an animal is clearly not as bad
Because animals lack the ability to speak, and knows virtually nothing outside of its own space.It probably doesn't even understand the concept of rape.
The same thing can be said if it was killed and eaten.
>our society makes rape worse then it actually is
What an ignorant statement. Maybe you haven't experienced what it's like to have no control over a terrible situation but that doesn't mean others haven't.
>It's like we don't do that already
And I implied there will be repercussions.
>it's only okay to do that when you eat them afterwards
Yes it is okay when we eat them as I have explained numerous times. We don't torture and eat. We kill and eat.
>you can live as a normal healthy vegetarian anywhere that humans live
>We know this is possible so killing them for survival isn't a thing anymore in the 1st world
Agreed. Admittedly eating meat is a commodity at this point, albeit a very tasty commodity.
>all these things happen under the wings of a world that considers itself civilized
Well, it's better than the alternative where we're overran with pesky animals who don't know how cross roads, steal food from our homes and possibly kill us because their "just animals".
>I think fucking a robot would be morally acceptable
You don't need consent from an object that never had consciousness

Thoughts on Air Bud?

All animals understand conflict. they play with the the idea of the conflicts they'll face later in life through childhood fights and they see those conflicts every day.

A rape would essentially be another conflict to them.

Animals also understand death to an extant.
youtube.com/watch?v=xg79mkbNaTg
The dead stop moving, The dead don't come back, anyone could die.


>What an ignorant statement. Maybe you haven't experienced what it's like to have no control over a terrible situation but that doesn't mean others haven't.
Oh my fucking god shut up, I know rape is bad, I'm saying what happens afterward is made worse by society.

For an animal there's no shame attached to rape, in that context it wouldn't be as bad.
>And I implied there will be repercussions.
IN the context of the meat industry there's no real repercussions, other than maybe some bad word of mouth
>We don't torture and eat.

Except we do, if a cow sees it's sister or mother die in a line up and knows it's going to die in that same way, that's torture.

It's even a huge mental stress to isolate a cow to the point where mirrors are placed in rooms with isolated cows to calm them down.

So many things that these animals go through can easily be seen as torture, though not to you because you don't fuckin carem you're a human.

>never had consciousness
If a robot did have consciousness it's consent still wouldn't matter because it's consciousness would be up for debate, we are observing it.

holy shit fags are disgusting

Just Gonna say animals rape each other all the time. I live on a farm and see chicken, goats, sheep, and dogs all rape each other from time to time. Or I assume it's rape, the female doesn't usually sound too happy about it.

So re:animal consent in theory shouldn't be hard to figure out since it's usually pretty clear when an animal doesn't like something. Unless you means it's rape because of the power structure of a human over an animal in which case okay, I guess animals never don't rape each other then since there's not a whole lot of Gender equity in the animal kingdom.

>All animals understand conflict
>A rape would essentially be another conflict to them
And sex with an animal will bring unnecessary conflict to that animal. Much like killing them for sport/trophy hunting.
>I'm saying what happens afterward is made worse by society.
It's made worse by media. Big difference.
>For an animal there's no shame attached to rape
So it's okay to rape an animal just because it doesn't feel a particular emotion?
The definition of rape hasn't changed. It's sex without consent and as we've already made clear, an animal cannot physically consent to a human being.
>If a cow sees it's sister or mother die in a line up and knows it's going to die in that same way, that's torture
True, it also makes the meat taste unpleasant. That's more or a regulation thing than a morality thing.
>If a robot did have consciousness
HBO's Westworld is fine case study on what it would be like to interact with robots

Rape within the animal kingdom can be considered natural. Many species procreate this way.
Humans don't need to rape to procreate.

The killing to begin with is an unnecessary conflict.

There are things in the meat industry that are nearly impossible to divorce from how the meat is made, what happens with the calfs and how the animals are killed.

This stuff happens all the time and none or only some of it is seen as inhumane when it's all unarguably stressful and painful from the cows perspective.

This gets further complicated by the fact that we're only recently finding out how emotionally complex these animals are compared to how long we've been keeping them.

To accept that killing an animal that's done nothing wrong, for any gain that's not out of complete necessity is to acknowledge that what they think or feel doesn't matter.

You are taking a life without good reason, we can morally extrapolate this to unnecessary killing.


Animals do are not a protected class, they do not have real rights, they are essentially property.
If you are fine with this then their potential consent is not even an issue worth discussing in any capacity. you can not needlessly kill a people and tell me you also respect their autonomy, you can not do the same with animals and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Correct, that is indeed Adam Johnston from YMS (YourDogSucksMyCockDOTorg) who is a dog rapist and enjoys bestiality.

The meat industry, at least in the US, is fucked beyond all doubt. We agree that mach.
However animals that are bred with the specific purpose to become food and utilities will always be according to nature no matter how advanced that nature may be.
The rights of animals should be to be left alone to live their lives outside of human interference until they are necessary to become food.
We may never see eye to eye on this. But it was interesting to see how the other side thinks.

I know that if animals were shaped like humans and looked fuckable, bestiality would either be a normal thing or worldwide epidemic.

Now it only exists as a niche animal rights topic because most people don't wanna fuck animals.

Fucking is just as natural a human drive as eating desu.

Not fucking animals, that's a drive to get ridiculed and probably parasites. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

Synecdoche is the most smart and genius movie of all time while the Holy Mountain is the most spiritually enlightening. Also I fall asleep while watching black and white movies.

>every Adum thread devolves into arguments over bestiality
I would complain but Adum threads have always been terrible. Before the bestiality shit came out every thread about him was nothing but "he's so pretentious!" and "he doesn't like a film that I like?! FUCK HIM!"

Couldn't give much of a fuck about bestiality but his reviews are on point

I just want more proper "SUCKS" reviews instead of these "Best of" reviews and Quickies. I love when he goes in depth and completely ignore the "Best of" reviews, they're never interesting to me yet he has so many of them.

Ralphthemoviemaker has the same thing, "Reasons why" is his best stuff and the shorter stuff where he just makes these really condensed reviews aren't as fun to watch.

The worst is when they do the reviews of the Sundance stuff, I understand he loves it but holy crap he's got a lot of those this year and they're always these indie films you've never heard of and won't even see for ages.

>I just want more proper "SUCKS" reviews instead of these "Best of" reviews and Quickies.
Agreed. The quickies are fine but I don't give a shit about the Best ofs. I also wish he would quit doing Adum Plaze now that Merk is gone. Some of the Adum Plaze videos are good but his SUCKS reviews are far better.

He's a massive soy boy

I'm fine with Quickies if they're like what he did for Jigsaw: meant to add onto another review he did prior and go in length, or to review a movie in length while also picking it apart without needing to do too much editing, but some of them are incredibly short. "Best of" videos need to be stopped though, they're always his reason for delaying other videos when his other videos are the fun things to watch. He also complains about how long it takes to watch and review like 80+ films every single time and complains about delays regarding them every single time.

Your reviews are surface level nitpicking, you retarded piece of shit. Go get fucked by a dog and stop spamming my board.

>I'm fine with Quickies
Of course you are, Adam, it's time to leave now.
If you need to advertise here, buy a Sup Forums ad and stop embarrassing yourself.

Without a doubt one of the dumbest posts I've read in quite some time.

Some libshit cunt with no counter argument to fucking animals is gonna call my post dumb?
Do society a favor and walk yourself off a cliff.