Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
This guy was having sex with dogs and storing child porn, which reinforces my claim that “pervert” is just a general category that includes anyone outside of normative heterosexuality.
The attempt to parse out various forms of sexual perversion into categories of “consent” has been an abysmal failure.
“Consent” is not a valid concept at all, let alone something capable of serving as the basis for important laws.
A Florida veterinarian was sentenced Friday to nearly 22 years in federal prison for recording videos of himself sexually abusing dogs and for collecting child pornography.
Prentiss Madden, 40, was hit with a total of 272 months behind bars after pleading guilty in July to child porn and animal cruelty charges, prosecutors with the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Florida announced.
Prosecutors said the sicko vet made videos of himself engaged in sexual activity with dogs and shared them with other degenerates in online chats. Investigators discovered the disturbing videos, as well as chats about bestiality, on his cell phones.
Madden also accessed kiddie porn via the file-sharing software Dropbox, storing “thousands” of horrifying files on his own account, according to prosecutors. He also received child porn images and videos through online chats and social media where he frequently discussed sexually abusing children.
Homeland Security agents raided his home on Feb. 24 and found files in which Madden discussed “the sexual abuse of animals and children” as well as multiple photos and videos depicting bestiality, according to court documents.
Madden was arrested in March for recording the beastiality videos while he was the medical director of Caring Hands Animal Hospital in Aventura, local outlets reported. Videos showed some of the abuse taking place at the animal hospital, according to prosecutors.
As soon as normal perceptions of sexuality were replaced with consent theory, we entered into a death spiral of perversion.
As a reader recently noted as regards consent theory:
If a Christian is addicted to porn a priest does not say, “Well as long as he consented to subscribe to the onlyfans and receive the bath water it seems like an issue of free individuals forming contracts so I don’t see the problem. He did receive the bath water, right? Or the question is about if it was genuine, maybe? I am sorry. I do not understand!”
If a priest says, “Sometimes the shepherd needs the company of the flock,” we do not say, “Well as long as your sheep consents, I guess that’s between the sheep and the sheep’s husband.”
If a forum member marries a Jewess we do not say, “Be careful not to consent to any of her schemes!”
We say, “You did not explain that. That’s a different situation.”
“Consent” does not solve, explain, or protect anything significant. When someone says, “make sure you have consent,” you should hear it like, “If you have more than one fork use the outer one. The house girl will keep taking them away when she clears plates until you’re left with none, but you needn’t worry about that. I’m only telling you to explain the system.”
It’s no way to govern a people, lead a congregation, run a farm, or rear a child. If someone’s advocating consent as a bedrock principle they’re probably a sloppy person who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else. Someone practicing “consent” in his life as an ultimate “principle” has probably rigged the system so he can use it to excuse an evil, compulsive, and stupid behaviour like masturbating into houseplants.
We need an actual structure for our society. You can’t run a society with made up gibberish that no one even understands.
I guarantee you this guy is going to say the dogs consented, and if it wasn’t for the child porn, then he’d probably get away with it.
Of course, he can’t say the child porn was consented to, because a child can’t consent to sex. They can consent to becoming a tranny, however. And after they consent to becoming a tranny, they can consent to riding around with adult homosexuals, who might be naked, and being touched by them.
Meanwhile, a 15-year-old girl can’t consent to sex, even if she is indistinguishable from an 18-year-old, and lies about her age. She can begin consenting on her 16th birthday in most states and territories, but only if there is no money involved. Gifts might also be illegal. Also, she can’t have crossed a state line within 3 days of the sex, or it stops being consent. Only on her 18th birthday is she able to consent fully to sex, including consenting to filming herself getting BDSM gang-banged in porno.
However – and this is important – if she smokes marijuana before signing the consent forms for the porno, then she can’t consent anymore. Also, if she signs the consent forms but doesn’t know what they say, she can’t consent anymore. Then, it’s rape again.
No one has really been able to work any of that out – but to be fair, no one has actually tried.
Explanations of consent theory typically look like this:
It’s definitely not like, an academic subject.
Saying that something is “consent” is the equivalent to invoking magic. You can’t really discuss what it means, because the concept is too feeble to withstand discussion.
Cenk Wigger has argued consent theory for animals should be based on how much the animal enjoys it. Because animals can’t talk, and you can’t ask it if it consents. So as long as the animal is getting off, Cenk argues, it is consenting.
However, if that logic was then to be applied to women (who are over 18 and therefore capable of consenting to all forms of sex), the whole legal order would collapse.
Harvey Weinstein was convicted of rape based on the claim that the victim was communicating to him with eye movements and psychic messages that she wasn’t that into it (after she’d gone to his hotel room and removed her clothing). She never said “no” or “don’t,” but he was legally responsible for not interpreting her anti-consent signals.
As soon as this consent stuff came in, it was only a matter of time before your dog got raped.
We have to return to something more reasonable.
