Ignorance and Self-Righteousness

This one is going to be pretty gross, so if you want to stop reading now, stop reading.

Otherwise, I want some opinions. Informed ones, please. I’m going to go about this in a very technical way with feelings detached. Bear with me.

Let’s just say there was a conversation started in a game lobby between some unrelated people about human relationships and sexual intercourse. Along the way, with the usual machismo, dirty-mindedness and lameness, it got nuttier and nuttier until it degenerated from sexual intercourse to the theme of “humans doing animals”. Two of the original number kept harping on and on about, well, doing animals (insert [animal] in place of [girl/boyfriend]), and alas two spectators who arrived only during the later half immediately started berating them for it.

I defended the original two by bringing up:

1. The two spectators who arrived halfway did not know the original context, that is, the topic of sexual intercourse degenerated via lameness/boredom/too lively an imagination into the later topic.

2. The two original people, given the context (see 1 and paragraphs above), were being sarcastic about the animal parts.

I said they did not deserve the two later spectators’ self-righteous judgement, and I was then immediately castigated for it, labelled ignorant, insulted and in general talked down to.

They kept insisting that humans/animals actually do happen so I shouldn’t defend anyone joking about it, and somehow they insisted the context to be rape, which wasn’t the case, so that they could hold “the high ground” by appealing to the helplessness of supposed rape victims, in this case the animals the original two were talking about.

Argument after argument and reasoning upon reasoning fell on deaf ears.

Yes, it has happened before. There was this guy who did a goat and was ordered by a court to marry it. Search the BBC. (I quizzed them about it and apparently they didn’t know about this case. So much for accusations of ignorance. They even tried to use this against me.)

But a case like the above is *not the norm*. So since it is not the norm, I saw no reason to believe that the two original chatters actually did what they were talking about for real. But the two later spectators insisted that it be treated as if it was the real deal, that the original two really could be doing it, which goes against the logic I’m appealing to above: that it is not the norm, plus given the conversation’s original context, so that I see more reason to believe they were sarcastic rather than serious, and thus didn’t deserve righteous fury.

They even tried to use the “kid could be seeing this convo” argument. In a first-person-shooter game environment with blood effects, headshots and nutshots, where you get shot in that sensitive area. It shows up as a big pop-up “NUTSHOT” when you do that to someone else. Oh, please - shouldn’t they also be lambasting the game’s developers/boycotting the very game they were in? I think it pretty ironic.

In no way did I claim that human/animal was not wrong. But it so happens people believe only what they would like to believe, think all others ignorant, utterly disgusting and hopeless fools, and apply standards selectively.

Anyone who’s only got half a worldview i.e. half-witted i.e. selective standards i.e. bleeding hearts and animal lovers, please refrain from emotional commenting.

Just joking. Note sarcasm. If you would like to say something, just please keep the tone neutral. Comments displaying a tone other than that will be binned, and so will trolls.

They even tried to use the “kid could be seeing this convo” argument. In a first-person-shooter game environment with blood effects, headshots and nutshots, where you get shot in that sensitive area. Oh, please.