🦊 Furry Adam Johnston / YourMovieSucks / YourMovieSucksDOTorg / AnUnkindness - It's hip to fuck dogs.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Lmao completely forgot about this pasty nigger. Remember I read a a few comments somewhere about him being a furry faggot many years ago and immediately lost interest in his autistic movie reviews. I bet he would try to rape Cool Cat if he ever got the chance!
 
It's kinda heartbreaking to see the mask slip off fully. Adam always acts like he's up for the debate and will argue for whatever dumb shit he thinks is correct but to watch him sperg out and scream pedophile at someone who just compiled things Adam said HIMSELF, disgusting.
 
California Newt said:
We need to make an important distinction. Furries don't have a dog rape problem because they're furries: they have a dog rape problem because they're gay.

Find me one straight furry—and I mean a 100% true-blue, red-blooded heterosexual furry (no funny business)—who rapes dogs. I'd bet you can't do it.

I bet you can't even find such a creature in order to make the evaluation.

The animal motifs are just an unfortunate coincidence, I'd wager: I'd'nt wager much, but I'd wager.
Click to expand...
Or maybe being sexually attracted to cartoon animals makes you delve into more and more deviant stuff because you develop a tolerance to "normal" attractions.
 
I've only ever watched one of his videos before and I barely made it through before his annoying squeaky voice made me turn it off
 
The thing I find most disturbing about him is the fact that his arguments about animal consenting to having sex are directly transferable to children. When he says that it's not rape if you make sure the dog is enjoying it, it's like saying that if you groom a kid, somehow it wouldn't count as rape. A lot of victim of child abuse have issues related to the fact that they felt some form of arousal during the rape, but that doesn't change anything - it's still rape. As fucked up as that sounds, a child who has been routinely raped by an adult will form some kind of attachment to that adult, mostly because they don't know better and over time, the assault is normalised and become a part of their life.

I don't think Adam is a zoophile, I think he is a pedophile. I think his argument about animals being able to consent is a strawman. It's just step 1. If they get you to accept that a dog can consent to sex with a human then it makes it easier to force you to accept that the same logic applies to kids. It's something that pedos often bring up, when they talk about children having sexual impulses and they use this to justify their actions, that somehow, they are merely responding to something a kid initiated. Just like Adam saying it's ok to rape the dog if it dry-humps your legs. It's not - for the same reason that it's not ok to rape a kid just because they show normal sign of early sexual development which are kinda normal for everyone to have.

There is also the fact that the furry porn that he is addicted to does not depict animals, it depicts children with animal-like features, not the other way around. His cub porn fetish is not a zoophiliac fetish, it's a pedophiliac fetish. The fact that the kids are depicted with animal like feature is just a way to deflect the accusation of pedophilia because it is somehow still less reprehensible to be attracted to animals than it is to be attracted to kids, but that's what it is. There is zero difference between "cub porn" and loli
 
Last edited:
beastiality is the best litmus test for if someone is a degenerate or not. many terrible things can be debated and discussed in the hypothetical and there is something to be gained intellectually... but when someone starts talking about dog dick... you just know.
 
NomiMalone said:
there are some ways in which it's probably not that bad I dunno,
Click to expand...
The LEAST bad situation of bestiality is the story of Dennis Pinyan, who worked for Boeing, dying because he got fucked, willingly, by a horse. Apparently the saftey strap he used broke and the horse went in too deep. He was too embarassed to go to the hospital and bleed out in his hotel room. He is the reason the beastiality is Illegal in Washington in the bygone year of 2005. Search Enumclaw horse sex case for some horrified laughs.
 
I bet furfags will try and say "oh we hate him we don't claim him". BS he will probably still show up a conventions, interact with other furries,his crimes will be swept under the rug and some will still support him and those who call them out get silenced.
 
You think adum likes his lions fresh or ripened?
IMG_1648.webp
 
While this thread is active, can I ask if YMS ever had another golden age of videos, or did he never make stuff as good as his walking dead S1-2 vids again?
 
I eradicated any chance of him showing up on my YouTube recommendations as soon as I read the initial Reddit posts years back. This stuff makes me so MATI I try to just completely ignore it, but I remember a lot of his arguments so I guess I’ll address a few directly because internalising a sperg for this long is bad for the spirit. These refer to his Reddit posts, which he stands by.
He used to make a big deal body language, things like dogs wagging theirs tails = they’re happy, so if it happens during abuse, then it’s not really abuse. But dogs wag their tails for many reasons, including stress. YMS has also said a dog humping means a human sexually assaulting them is acceptable, because the dog wants sex. First, dogs only want to mate with other dogs, they don’t have fetishises, they have testosterone and instincts they follow. Dogs hump out of excitement, having too much energy they don’t know what to do with, and domination. Female dogs will hump other female dogs for this reason. A dog humping humans leg is not a cue from the dog that it wants to be raped by a human or ‘get off’, not even fucking close. Let’s not even get into how dogs will do this for a few minutes or seconds, yet a human sexually assaulting them usually goes on for a lot longer, again exhibiting how the animal is forced.

What if the dog tries to get away, just for a second, but the owner holds them still so it stops? Or gives them a verbal command? Where are the dog body language experts standing by every single time some freak wants to abuse them, to make sure all the body language is positive? Literally fucking kill yourself.

I hate even typing this, by the way. Sickening to even think the words to transcribe his argument. He’s such fucking scum, and the rhetoric is VILE. Who remembers those articles posted here about farmers noticing their livestock are suddenly FEARFUL of humans, only to put up cameras and discover men were breaking in to rape them? The orangutan that was held in a brothel in some East Asian country, and is now in a sanctuary, and to this day is terrified of humans. Even the other day, I saw an old Opie and Anthony clip, where they covered the news and some guy broke into an apartment to abuse a dog. The dog had injuries from trying to escape this deranged faggot sucking its penis. It’s all the same.
His big argument that zoophiles and the Redditor rationalists love to this day is that hunting and eating animals means raping them is OK because death is worse. This logic is retarded, because we can recognise that a hunter killing an animal for food doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to torture it to death first. We can recognise if a human kidnaps someone, tortures them, rapes them, then kills them—they will be charged and punished for ALL of those acts, not only the murder. The death doesn’t make the actions beforehand redundant.

Besides. We don’t farm dogs for meat in NA. Animal cruelty against dogs in particular is generally illegal. The argument fails in every way.
YMS also mentioned how horses can be bred (which somehow makes it okay for his buddies to rape dogs, because he loves to get species specific then conflate them all together to pretend the argument is better than it is.) I’m sure he just happened to know this information and hasn’t obsessively watched videos of it happening, including horses being tied in place and forced to penetrate gay men, which is such a popular faggot past time that even normies have heard of articles where men have died from it.

Anyway. In case you don’t know, people sell sperm from male horses, and one way to get it is by locking a male horse somewhere it can’t leave and a human uses their hand to jerk it off. The sperm is collected and sold. The reason this doesn’t logically make it fine to rape animals (because that’s why people like YMS do, pretend it’s all just logical and reasoning that gives them no choice but to advocate for it) is the human ability to reason and recognise intent.

Take a paediatric doctor, and imagine taking your kid to see them. They’re completely professional, an excellent doctor, make no inappropriate move… but they have an erection for the duration that they treat any child. He’s doing his job, and technically not harming anyone by YMS’s standards, just getting aroused by his proximity to children. But we recognise that intent/motivation, and that it matters. A lot.

So, the people extracting sperm from those horses, in an abstract sense (because I’m sure a lot of YMS-types are attracted to a job that includes those duties) aren’t getting off on it. They’re just doing what needs done to breed horses, which is their business. And while this isn’t ethical, is exploitation in the purest form, deserves criticism—we can still recognise the difference. That this has a purpose that we recognise has value—breeding horses, and is just the easiest way to get it done. We do not recognise the purpose of satisfying a human erection to be of any value or any justification for such measures.

Now, I know none of these arguments from him are serious, he quite simply wants for him and all his friends to be able to rape animals with the mental capacity of 2-3 year old toddlers, who are utterly voiceless, will obviously have their stress, pain, and discomfort ignored by the lowlife rapist trying to rape them, and absolutely cannot escape or say no. Exposing the fundamental dishonesty behind their logic (a word they hide behind) is worthwhile. People in the thread already mentioned key points (like all the arguments also applying to children and are therefore reprehensible) which is why I didn’t get in that.
 
Last edited:
keke said:
Now, I know none of these arguments from him are serious, he quite simply wants for him and all his friends to be able to rape animals with the mental capacity of 2-3 year old toddlers, who are utterly voiceless, will obviously have their stress, pain, and discomfort ignored by the lowlife rapist trying to rape them, and absolutely cannot escape or say no
Click to expand...
These people wanna fuck animals any and all argument they come up with are just excuses for them to fuck animals. They have already found their conclusion and are trying to work backwards in order to justify it.
 
Kyno said:
If you think you can justify fucking an animal because "its showed signs of consenting", then you should definitely think you should be able to justify fucking a child that "consents". A child is much more mentally developed then an animal, and if not and you do find that disgusting. Why do you then find that wrong compared to the bestiality?

In the Rob's Media video at 12:20 Adam himself (like destiny and Vaush using the same arguments to justify their disgusting ideals) say its more about moral consistency. With the lack of religion or grand moral rulings that tell us right from wrong, these people one standard of morality is moral consistency.

The question you shouldn't be asking is "how do you prove him wrong?". The question you should be asking is "why is it you find being a hypocrite more morally reprehensible then justifying things like bestiality or paedophilia?". Why is that what you are striving for to the point you are justifying things like that?

Like ok im not morally consistent because I eat meat but I dont fuck animals. Fine, im fine with that, id rather be a hypocrite then justify fucking animals. Why would you rather justify fucking animals then be seen as a hypocrite?

This "anything but hypocrisy" approach is the death throws of post-modern rationality.
Click to expand...
Every living person on this planet is a hypocrite it is impossible to be 100% morally consistent about everything.
 
California Newt said:
We need to make an important distinction. Furries don't have a dog rape problem because they're furries: they have a dog rape problem because they're gay.
Click to expand...
Why not both? 84% of male furries identify as non-heterosexual, while a whole 99% said they have sexual motivations for being furries. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30806867/ Study link.

Edit:
Kyno said:
Like ok im not morally consistent because I eat meat but I dont fuck animals. Fine, im fine with that, id rather be a hypocrite then justify fucking animals. Why would you rather justify fucking animals than be seen as a hypocrite?
Click to expand...
Your point is fair regardless, but because they LOVE to hide behind just making arguments, just following the logic, behind rational - it’s good to note that we as humans make the distinction. I’ll spend some additional time going through it because I think it’s really important they get pushback at every angle, and I’ve spent time thinking about this, while most haven’t, because I hate their ‘rationality’ facade.

TLDR: (Also, I do ask, how eating steak means it’s okay for YMS to rape a pet German Shepherd?)

Killing an animal for meat is highly regulated, and a lot of countries spend millions on making it as ethical as possible, though there’s a long long way to go, the financial investment clearly shows people care. New legislation is drafted globally to make these industries better. We recognise it as a necessary evil because humans are omnivores. Just because an animal will be slaughtered for meat that will be eaten for survival, doesn’t mean morally we accept: skimming it alive, torturing it to death, stoning it to death, etc. Just because the end result is death, doesn’t mean everything less than that is also fine. In human law, raping and murdering someone sees them charged with both actions. We categories and recognise it all.

Again. Humans recognise the purpose and value of killing an animal, an unpleasant, bad thing, for food. This includes a lone hunter shooting a deer. We do not recognise that doing bad things to animals to satisfying a gay furry’s erection as having any value or purpose to justify it.

It is therefore not the same and not hypocritical, because they are two different things with clear reasoning. But if it were somewhat hypocritical, and that argument can still be made in the animals rights activism sense (not in the zoophile sense), it doesn’t prove anything, because moral frameworks aren’t simple. A hypocrite can still be right, and hypocrisy doesn’t negate truth.

And if the person your arguing with being a vegan (not eating meat) causes it to crumble, then maybe it was a shitty argument to begin with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom